JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The present batch of writ petitions have been filed by the various petitioners who are dependents of Government officials who have died in harness, having less than 3 years balance in their service carriers, thereby assailing the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, only to a limited extent, whereby, the dependants of Government officials who have died in harness having less than 3 years of service in balance is being deprived of the benefit of the said Office Memorandum. In the present batch of the writ petitions, the candidature of the petitioners have been rejected either by the District Level Committee or by the State Level Committee for compassionate appointment in view of the Clause-1 of the said Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, the details of which are mentioned specifically in the latter part of the present judgment.

3. It is the case of the petitioners herein that there is no rationale of depriving the family members of those Government Officers who die in harness, having less than minimum of 3 years of service, from the purview of being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, taking into account that the object sought to be achieved is upon the death of an employee who dies in harness, the dependants are provided solace and succor in difficult times due to the death of the sole bread earner.

4. The offending Clause-1 of the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is quoted herein below:

“(1) Only one dependent family member of a Government servant appointed on regular basis - excluding one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis - who die in harness or become incapacitated due to accidents suffered while on duty and is eligible to opt for invalid pension under relevant provision of Service Rule/Pension Code and/or who is missing is eligible for making application for compassionate appointment provided in each case the Government servant has balance of minimum of 3 years of service.”

From a reading of the said Clause-1 quoted as hereinabove, it would reveal that only one dependent family member of a Government servant appointed on regular basis (excluding one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or contract or re-employment basis) who die in harness or become incapacitated due to accidents suffered while on duty and is eligible to opt for invalid pension under relevant provisions of Service Rule/Pension Code, a Government servant who has gone missing, is eligible to make an application for compassionate appointment; provided in each case the Government servant has balance of minimum of 3 years of service.

5. The State respondents have filed a detail affidavit in WP(C) No.3245/2019 and it has also been submitted by Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate that the said affidavit is a comprehensive affidavit which will deal with the issue in the batch of the writ petitions. In the said affidavit, it has been mentioned that the policy of compassionate appointment as contained in the Office Memorandum dated 01.06.2015 is in conformity with the principles of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Achyut Ranjan Das Vs. The State of Assam & Others reported in 2006 (4) GLT 674. It has been mentioned that the compassionate appointment which is a source of recruitment without taking into consideration the intense merit tends to offend Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, strictly on humanitarian ground and to save the surviving family of the deceased Government employee from destitution, an exception is carved out in spite of Article 16 and that is how the State provides for appointment on compassionate ground. On the rationale, behind not granting the benefit to those Government