Compassionate appointment claims should be considered based on the scheme in force at the time of the employee's death, and prior court orders must be complied with, regardless of subsequent policy changes.

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Longkumer, learned Junior Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondents no. 1 to 6 and Mr. I. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment as a constable on compassionate grounds. The facts presented before this Court are that the elder brother of the present petitioner, namely, Sengnya Khim @ Senya Khim, who was working as a Constable No.53943 under “F Coy 5^th Nagaland Armed Police, Phek, met with an accident while on duty and succumbed to his injuries on 10.11.2009 in the hospital. Pursuant to his demised, the petitioner, being the younger brother of the deceased, applied on 05.12.2009 for appointment on compassionate grounds as Constable (GD) to the Commandant, Superintendent of Police, however, no action was taken by the respondent authorities on his application. Being aggrieved, he filed WP(C) No. 88(K)/2016, which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 01.06.2016 with a direction to appoint the petitioner in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2002. The same, however, was not complied with prompting the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing WP(C) No.15(K)/2017 which came to be disposed of on 14.03.2017. By the subsequent order, a direction was issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as and when his turn comes in terms of the seniority. However, by the impugned letter dated 03.11.2022, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (HQ), Nagaland, i.e. the respondent no. 5, informed the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner’s case could not be considered. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The respondents no. 1 to 6 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition contesting the case of the petitioner. It is stated therein that by OM Dated 13.02.2022, the scheme of compassionate appointment for dependents of the deceased Government Servants was partially modified by the OM dated 16.01.2012, whereby the brother/sister of the Government servant was excluded from being eligible to be appointed on being compassionate grounds. The said OM dated 16.01.2012 was again superseded by the OM dated 17.09.2015, whereby the only the spouse/son/daughter of the deceased employee was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Accordingly, the petitioner being the brother of the deceased Constable No. 53943 under “F Coy 5^th Nagaland Armed Police, Phek was not eligible to be considered under the Scheme of 2015.

4. The Respondent No. 7, the Inspector General of Police (HQ), Nagaland, Kohima, also contested the case by filing an affidavit wherein he denied the allegations made against him, including the claim that there was any malafide intention in the non-consideration of the writ petitioner’s claims.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Ashish Awasthi reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157 and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.141/2020 dated 12.11.2024 Learned counsel for the respondents in turn have pressed into service the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in NC Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 and submitted that it is the scheme of the Office Memorandum which is in force on the date of consideration shall be applicable