Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 1204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
Churu Lowang D/o Shri Senwang Lowang – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 141 of 2020
Decided On : 12-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T. Son.
For the Respondents: I. Riram, T. Jamoh, D. Kamduk.
The main legal point established is that appointments must adhere to jurisdictional regulations and compassionate appointment norms.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Jurisdictional Irregularity - Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules 1965 - Compassionate Appointment Comprehensive View, 2016 - F. No. 14014/02/2012-ESTT(D) - AR-68/2009 - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on a contractual basis, and her service was extended. However, the respondent No. 2 appointed another individual as UDC on compassionate grounds, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was irregular and out of jurisdiction, while the appointment of the respondent No. 7 was in line with the compassionate appointment norms and regulations.
Issues: Jurisdictional irregularity, compassionate appointment, contractual appointment
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's appointment was irregular and not on compassionate grounds, while the appointment of the respondent No. 7 followed the laid down norms for compassionate appointment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the writ petition was disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
AJIT BORTHAKUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, representing the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. T. Jamoh, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, representing the respondent Nos. 2, 3 4 and 6. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 7.
2. This writ petition is directed against the impugned Order No. ED.2/DSE/419/APT/2017, dated 07.01.2019, under the seal and signature of the Director of Secondary Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar (respondent No. 2 herein), appointing the private respondent No. 7 directly to the post of Upper Division Clerk (for short 'UDC') on compassionate ground against the vacancy of one R.K. Gupta, Retired UDC, without following the due procedures of the Govt. of India guidelines/instructions on compassionate appointment vide Office Memorandum No. F. No. 14014/02/ 2012-Estt.(D), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), North Block, New Delhi, dated 16.01.2013 as well as the guidelines/instructions issued by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh by adopting a back door policy of deluding the official procedures established in the Guidelines and Instructions under the scheme for compassionate appointment at the time of “die-in-harness.”
3. The grievance of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed to the post of UDC on contractual basis initially for a period of 1(one) year in the pay matrix Rs.29,200/- Level-5, Cell-1 in the Office of the Deputy Director of School Education, Tirap District, Khonsa (respondent No. 4 herein) vide Order No. EED/2/234/2012, dated 20.07.2017 issued under the seal and signature of the Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar (respondent No. 3 herein) against the vacancy which arose after the retirement of one R.K. Gupta, UDC.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment order, the petitioner joined her duty on 31.07.2017 in the office of the respondent No. 4 and she was assigned charter of duty for allotment of staff quarter, Medical Reimbursement (M.R.), vacation, issue of circular, wages bill and DDSE tour programme etc. vide order No. EDN/KSA/CD/2009-10, dated 30.10.2017. On completion of one year service rendered by the petitioner, the Respondent No. 3 vide order No. EED.2/ 234/2012/272, dated 11.07.2018, was pleased to grant further period of 6(six) months w.e.f. 01.08.2018 to 30.01.2019 along with charter of duties vide order No. EDN/KSA/CD/09-10, dated 11.09.2018 by considering her satisfactory performance during the contractual period. After completion of the one year period the petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 and requested for regularization of her service as there were similarly situated cases where persons were already regularized by the respondent authorities without conducting any formal interview. On request, the respondent No. 3 was pleased to put up the file for process for consideration of the petitioner's case sympathetically as well as on satisfactory performance on the part of petitioner during the contractual period.
5. Again, vide order No. EED.2/234/2012, dated 25.01.2019, issued by the respondent No. 3, further extended the contractual period for another 6 (six) months w.e.f. 31.01.2019 to 31.07.2019, with the same terms and conditions as mentioned in the initial appointment order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order the petitioner was continuing in her service with utmost sincerity and devotion to her duties with a hope and trust that the Respondent No. 3 would regularize her service. But, unfortunately, the respondent No. 2 vide the impugned order No. ED.2/DSE/419/APT/2017, dated 07.01.2019, appointed the private respondent No. 7 temporarily as UDC on compassionate ground with pay matrix Level-5, Cell-5 of Rs. 29,200/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under rules from time to time with effect
