IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Smti. Atokali Aomi, W/o. Lt. Aaron Aomi – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary To The Government Of Nagaland And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.174 of 2023
Decided On : 06-06-2024
Article 226 - Appointment on Compassionate Ground - Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 - Clause 4
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds after her husband's death. The respondent authorities did not consider her case, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to be considered in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 and directed the respondents to accommodate her in respect to upcoming vacancies.
Issues: Non-consideration of petitioner's case for compassionate appointment in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment in line with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015, and directed the respondents to accommodate her in respect to upcoming vacancies.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 and accommodate her in respect to upcoming vacancies.
JUDGMENT :
The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has been invoked by the petitioner being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner’s husband was serving as the Store Keeper at Chessor under the establishment of the Assistant Director, Food and Civil Supplies of Tuensang. He died in harness on 16.10.2021. Thereupon, immediately the petitioner on 10.12.2021 applied for being appointed in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015. However, as the respondent authorities have not taken any steps for consideration of the case of the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Before further proceeding, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015. A perusal of the said Office Memorandum shows that the appointment on compassionate ground shall be given only to one of the members of the deceased employee’s family. It would either be the spouse or the son or the daughter. It is also seen that the appointment on compassionate ground shall be made only on regular basis to direct recruitment posts and only if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are available in that Department where the deceased Government employee was serving. Clause 4 of the said Office Memorandum has great relevant to the instant proceedings in as much as the earlier ceiling for compassionate appointment of 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies in Group C and Group D posts were done away with thereby providing that such appointment on compassionate ground shall not exceed 50% of the vacancies during a year. It has also been mentioned that the appointment against the post for direct recruitment in Group C should be in Entry Grade only.
4. Upon filing of the instant writ petition, the respondents filed the affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been stated amongst others that the petitioner’s case is still under consideration in the chronological order for appointment in Grade-IV post on compassionate ground under the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaland and the petitioner stands at Sl. No.4. It was mentioned that the case of the petitioner for appointment in Grade-IV post on compassionate ground shall be considered as and when her turn comes up subject to availability of vacancy.
5. To the said affidavit-in-opposition, an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the said affidavit-in-reply shows that the petitioner pursuant to obtaining certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 alleged that the authorities have not adhered to Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015. From the said Annexure to the affidavit-in-reply, it is seen that 49 vacancies had arisen in Grade-IV post in the Food and Civil Supplies Department during the period from 2015 to 2023. It is also pertinent to mention that 24 vacancies had arisen pursuant to the filing of the application by the petitioner. It is also seen from the said Annexure that since 2015, as many as 49 appointments have been made thereby all the posts which had arisen from 2015 to 2023 have been filed up. Interestingly, 24 posts have been filed up since 21.11.2022 either by direct recruitment or on land ownership basis.
6. This Court at this stage also finds it relevant to take note of the submission of Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the direct recruitment which has been made since 21.11.2022 or for that matter, 22 direct recruitments have been made without following the due process.
7. Be that as it may, one aspect of the matter is clear that the State respondents have not taken into consideration the Clause 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015 while filling up the vacancies which arose since 22.11.2022 till the filing of the writ pet
AI
Entitlement to compassionate appointment in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 17.09.2015.
Compassionate appointment is not a right and must be pursued immediately after a financial crisis due to the death of the breadwinner; delays undermine the purpose of such provisions.
Point of Law : Claim for compassionate appointment must be decided only on the basis of the relevant scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee.
Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and cannot be claimed after significant delays, as it undermines the urgency intended by the provisions for financial distress relief.
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and should be made in accordance with the state's policy and eligibility criteria. It is not a matter of right and is intended to enable ....
Compassionate appointment is a discretionary policy meant to provide immediate support to bereaved families and cannot be claimed as a right after financial crises subside.
Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exceptional remedy under Article 16, requiring prompt action and valid circumstances; delays undermine eligibility.
Compassionate appointment is a concession and should be restricted to genuine cases of penurious circumstances. Efflux of time can be a ground for rejecting the claim.
Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and must be made in accordance with the state's policy and eligibility criteria, considering the financial condition of the deceased empl....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.