IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the respondent authorities to interpret and apply the die-in-harness scheme correctly, consider compassionate appointments in a timely manner, and obey court orders.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 6.9.2018 passed by the third respondent whereby rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment.

[2] The case of the petitioner is that his father Tikendrakumar died-in-harness on 19.6.2005 and the petitioner is one of the dependents to his deceased father and also unmarried living with his brother and rest of the family members are settled and supported by his mother at another place. After the death of his father, the petitioner applied for appointment under the compassionate grounds on 29.8.2005 under die-in-harness scheme. The respondent authorities rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it was applied during the time when the scheme was banned on 15.6.2002 through the office letter dated 1.9.2005. Later the scheme was lifted and restored on 16.12.2006 stating that the families who died-in-harness during the period from 15.6.2002 upto the date of restoration will be covered under the scheme with immediate effect. Consequent to the restoration of the scheme, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms issued a memorandum dated 6.6.2007 that all those applications made under the scheme between 15.6.2002 to 16.12.2006 should submit fresh applications within two months from the date of the order. According to the petitioner, since he was unaware of the office memorandum, the petitioner approached the respondent as soon as it came to his knowledge with a representation dated 10.7.2007 and again on 21.4.2017 to consider the application. However, the said application was rejected by the fourth respondent through an order dated 18.4.2012 stating that the petitioner cannot further claim under die-in-harness scheme.

[3] Further case of the petitioner is that since the authority handled the matter technically rather than on humanistic and compassionate grounds, he filed W.P.(C) No.319 of 2017 praying for consideration of appointment under compassionate ground on 3.5.2017 and by an order dated 11.6.2018, the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the State respondents to consider for appointment under die-in-harness scheme as per rules. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 20.6.2018 to abide by the order dated 11.6.2018 passed in the said writ petition. In response to the said legal notice, an order dated 6.9.2018 was issued by the third respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

[4] Respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that since the petitioner himself affirmed that the mother of the petitioner i.e. wife of the deceased Government employee was serving as a regular Assistant Teacher under the Government of Manipur upto 30.6.2012, the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment under die-in-harness scheme. As such, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 6.9.2018 rejecting the application of the petitioner and therefore, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order.

[5] Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the constant and undeterred refusal on the part of the respondent authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioner under die-in-harness scheme is intentional and deliberate and that the claim of the petitioner should not be dealt with technically by the respondent authorities.

[6] The learned counsel further submitted that the grounds on which compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner was heard by this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.319 of 2017 and considering the facts established as to the dire need of the compassion, this Court directed the State to consider the application of the petitioner. However, by the impugned order, the third respondent rejected the application of the petitioner.

[7] The learned counsel next submitted that die-in-harness scheme is welfare policy of the G