IMPORTANT POINT
The die-in-harness scheme aims to provide immediate employment and settlement to the family of the deceased government employee, and eligibility criteria should be considered in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT

[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner to a class-III post in the Sericulture Department, preferably as a Lower Division Clerk or Inspector, which is commensurate with his educational qualification.

[2] The case of the petitioner is that his father John Chithang Naulak, while working as an Inspector in the Sericulture Department, died on 4.10.2002 and the petitioner being the eldest son submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. However, at the relevant point of time, the Government had withdrawn the dis-in-harness scheme for some time only to restore it after a few years. After the restoration of the scheme, it was notified that the family members of the deceased employees who had died during the period of withdrawal and restoration will be eligible for compassionate appointment as per the death of the deceased employee, subject to the family member applying for compassionate appointment.

[3] Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, who has earlier applied at the time of the death of his father, again applied to the authorities for giving him compassionate appointment to a suitable post, preferably Class-III post like Lower Division Clerk as he was a graduate having passed his B.A (Hons) in political Science. In the meantime, it came to the notice of the petitioner that, some tampering had been made in the list of the claimants for compassionate appointment, whereby a person lower to him was placed have him. Not only that, the date of the petitioner’s father expiry was tampered with by pushing it back by a year later. Aggrieved by such tampering, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No. 473 of 2014 to quash such tampering and sought for compassionate appointment. By an order dated 11.2.2015, this Court allowed the writ petition after recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate that, it has already corrected the tampering giving the petitioner his rightful position. However, the petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that there were two more claimants to the post of LDC, Grade-III above the petitioner will the available post of LDC was only one and the petitioner was advised that his claim will be considered when there are vacancies available in the Department.

[4] It is the further case of the petitioner that having waited for more than five years since his earlier claim was rejected, the petitioner again approached the Department and submitted an application requesting him for giving compassionate appointment on 19.11.2020. Along with the application, the petitioner filed application under RTI Act seeking complete details of the claimant list, number of Grade-III post available as well as available vacancies and also appointment made to Grade-III post at the last instant. Thereafter, in view of the Vagueness of the information furnished, the petitioner once again filed another application under RTI Act seeking further clarification as well as information and the same has not been responded till date by the authorities.

[5] According to the petitioner, in the meantime, it has came to be knowledge of the petitioner that there are available vacancies of Lower Division Clerks as well as Inspectors which are Grade-III post in the Department. Since the authorities have failed to response to the latest claim of the petitioner till today, he has filed the present petition seeking direction on the respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment to him to a Grade-III post, preferably LDC or Inspector.

[6] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State.

[7] The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that though the respondent authorities maintained the seniority list for compassionate appointment under die-in-harness scheme, but