Athokpam Sukhendrajit Singh vs State Of Manipur And Others

MV Muralidaran, J

[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order of the third respondent dated 24.7.2018 and to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment under the die-in- harness scheme.

[2] The case of the petitioner is that his father Anthokpam Sunil Singh was working as Grade IV Peon and he expired while in harness on 24.11.2012 leaving behind his wife and three sons. On 19.9.2013, the petitioner's mother submitted an application for appointment to any suitable post under die-in-harness scheme to her second son namely Athokpam Sukhendrajit. In continuation of her previous application, on 4.10.2013, the petitioner's mother submitted another application for such consideration for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme in favour of any of his sons, whosoever is suitable and eligible for such consideration.

[3] The application dated 19.9.2013 was considered by the authorities and the third respondent communicated to the first respondent, thereby informed for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme in respect of 113 applicants. The petitioner's name was reflected in Serial No.99 in the said list. Thereafter, the third respondent communicated to the Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur, whereby furnished the list of eligible applicants in seniority wise who are eligible for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. In the said combined seniority list the petitioner's name was reflected at serial No.753. Thereafter, on 24.7.2018, the third respondent communicated a final seniority list of 723 applicants, who are eligible and possessed complete documents for appointment under die-in-harness scheme in the Department of Education (S) to the Commissioner, Education (s), Government of Manipur, wherein the petitioner's name was not included and the petitioner's name was shown in the list of 310 ineligible applicants at Serial No.289. In the column termed as reason for rejection, it has been mentioned as "application received beyond the valid period as DP OMs".

[4] The case of the petitioner is that application for appointment under die-in-harness scheme was submitted before the concerned authority within the time and his name was found place in the earlier two lists of applicants and the rejection of the name of the petitioner, as application submitted beyond the period, is wrong, false and unreasonable. The petitioner being aggrieved and having no other alternative, approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking to quash the impugned official letter dated 24.07.2018 in respect of the petitioner on the ground that the same is illogical, contradictory and unjustified.

[5] Respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that on examination of all the documents, the petitioner was found to have been below 15 years of age at the time of expiry of his father, for which the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the said scheme had been rejected as not applicable under the relevant Office Memorandum dated 01.4.2011. It is stated that the ground/reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as indicated against the name of the petitioner under Serial No.789 under 11th column of the annexure to the list dated 24.7.2018 shall be deemed to have been made as "minor age of the applicant". As a matter of fact, inadvertent mistake was made through oversight, for which it is much regretted. It is also stated that the eligible list for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme was published after due verification of the documents submitted by the applicants and as per rules of Department of P&AR published from time to time in connection with the appointment under die-in-harness scheme. The claim of the petitioner does not deserved to be considered and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

[6] Assailing the impugned list dated 24.7.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on an earlier occasion the name of the petitioner was found place for appointment under die-in-harness scheme, however, by the impugned letter, the petitioner's name was not included, which action of the respondent authority is arbitrary, illegal and non-application of mind.

[7] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the application of the petitioner is within time and due to death of his father, the family of the petitioner is suffering financial crisis and as per die-in- harness scheme, the petitioner is eligible for appointment under die-in- harness scheme.

[8] On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that after thorough examination of the documents, the authorities found that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and as such, his application was rejected. However, due to inadvertent and oversight, in the impugned letter, it has been mentioned as "beyond time", which mistake has been subsequently corrected by issuing a Corrigendum dated 22.12.2018. He would submit that the records reveal that it is a matter of narration of facts of the applications received for consideration of appointment under die-in-harness scheme in chronological order based on the date of receipt of the applications as considered in respect of the petitioner on completion of the relevant documents as required thereof. The claim /prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable and there is no arbitrariness in issuing the impugned letter.

[9] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

[10] There is no dispute that the father of the petitioner died on 24.11.2012 and on 19.09.2013 an application for die-in-harness was submitted by the mother of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner to any suitable post. In continuation of the letter dated 19.09.2013, on 04.10.2013, the mother of the petitioner again submitted application to the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur requesting for giving appointment to her sons either first son or the second son, the petitioner herein.

[11] Pursuant to the application dated 19.09.2013, the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District communicated to the Director of Education vide letter dated 15.12.2014 furnished an enquiry report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Porompat in respect of the family members, land valuation certificate, income certificate etc. Thereafter, the third respondent communicated a letter on 15.9.2015 to the first respondent thereby informing the authorities in connection with the relevant documents along with duly filled Proforma-B in respect of appointment under die-in-harness scheme in respect of 113 applicants, wherein the petitioner's name was found place at Serial No.99.

[12] On 21.07.2017, the third respondent communicated to the Principal Secretary, Education (S), Government of Manipur, whereby furnished a combined seniority list, who are eligible for appointment under die-in-harness scheme, wherein the petitioner's name was found place at Serial No.753. However, by the impugned letter dated 24.7.2018 communicated to the first respondent, the third respondent has submitted a final seniority list of 723 applicants who are eligible and possessed complete documents as per Office Memorandum for appointment under die-in-harness scheme in the Department of Education (S), Manipur. The petitioner's name though was found place in the final seniority list at Serial No.723, his name was found place in the list of 310 ineligible applicants at Serial No.289.

[13] On a perusal of the list showing ineligible applicants, who were rejected from the list of die-in-harness applicants, the petitioner's name was found at Serial No.289 and reason for rejection has been stated as "Application received beyond theWP(C) No.869 of 2018 Page 7 valid period as per DP OMs''. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is wrong for the reason that on 19.9.2013 itself, the petitioner's mother has submitted application for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme and therefore, there is no question of submitting the application in a belated time. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable.

[14] The learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that the reason for rejection of the application against the petitioner stated in the impugned letter is incorrect and the actual reason shall be deemed to have been made as "minor age of the applicant" and the said mistake has been corrected by issuing Corrigendum.

[15] It is to be mentioned that the respondents have admitted the factum of submission of the application dated 19.9.2013 by the mother of the petitioner. In this connection, Clause (IV) of Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2017 states that "the Head of Department concerned after considering the applications received should either submit the completed proposal to the Government for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme or reject the application within one year from the date of receipt of the application". The fact remains that the application dated 19.9.2013 was processed as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2017, particularly Clause (IV).

[16] It is admitted by the petitioner that at the time of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was aged 14 years, 8 months and 14 days and on the date of submission of the application i.e., on 19.9.2013, the petitioner was aged 15 years, 6 months and 9 days,

[17] At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application for appointment under die-in-harness has to be submitted within three years from the date of expiry of the Government servant. In support, he placed reliance on the office Memorandum dated 01.4.2011 of the respondents. Clause(v) of the office Memorandum dated 01.04.2011 states that "To consider the cases in which the applicant was 15 years of age when his/her father/mother and unmarried brother/sister expired provided that the application is submitted within 3 (three) Years from the date of expiry of the Government Servant". The existence of said Clause has not been disputed by the respondents. In view of the above, the respondents cannot deny that the petitioner was found to have been below 15 years of age at the time of expiry of his father and rejecting the claim of the petitioner as not applicable is misconceived and misinterpreted.

[18] Consideration for appointment initiates when an application is received by the authorities. The petitioner was 15 years of age when such application dated 19.09.2013 was submitted before the concerned authorities and further Clause (v) of the Office Memorandum dated 01.4.2011 permits an applicant to submit his application for such consideration for appointment under die-in-harness scheme within three years. Since the petitioner's application is within three years as per the Office Memorandum dated 01.4.2011, it is the bounden duty of the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme.

[19] After due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the son of the deceased who died while working under the respondents and after the death of the deceased, the mother of the petitioner submitted application within one year and thus, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner to submit the application. In fact, the delay is attributable to the respondents who slept over the matter for nearly five years and passed the impugned order only in the year 2018. The petitioner was running from pillar to post to seek appointment and again he is being blamed by the respondents who were sleeping over the application and saying that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father.

[20] After going through the entire records, it is revealed that though the mother of the petitioner had promptly filed application seeking appointment under die-in-harness scheme and the same was processed at initial stage, declined to consider the same on a flimsy ground and finally rejected the application only in the year 2018 that too without correct reason and later on issued Corrigendum to correct the reason for rejection on their own. This Court is of the view that the respondents cannot take dual stand in rejecting the application for appointment under die-in-harness scheme.

[21] It is pertinent to note that the present writ petition was filed on 14.9.2018 challenging the impugned letter dated 24.7.2018 and during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have modified the impugned letter dated 24.7.2018 by issuing the Corrigendum dated 22.12.2018 without leave of this Court. The intention and action of the respondent authorities is illegal, malafide and unjust and also interfering with the administration of justice. Moreover, the respondent authorities by interfering with the impugned letter dated 24.7.2018 have acted malafidely and also abused thereof to further render such claim of the petitioner as invalid. Hence, the alleged Corrigendum dated 22.12.2018 is liable to be set aside in respect of the petitioner.

[22] As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the word 'Minor' has not been defined in any of the Office Memorandums with respect to the die-in-harness scheme as applicable in the instant case. Since no appointment has been made so far by the respondents and by now, the petitioner has met the requirements as per applicable conditions and criteria as enumerated in the applicable Office Memorandums and the scheme being a welfare scheme, it is the bounden duty of the respondent authorities to consider the grievance/claim of the petitioner in the given facts and peculiar circumstances of the case on sympathetic and humanitarian ground and shall provide appointment to the petitioner.

[23] For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the impugned letter dated 24.07.2018 and the Corrigendum dated 22.12.2018 issued by the third respondent are arbitrary and against the natural justice in respect of the petitioner and the same are therefore liable to be set aside.

[24] In the result,

(i) The writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned letter dated 24.07.2018 and the corrigendum dated 22.12.2018 issued by the third respondent are set aside.

(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner to a suitable postcommensurate with his educational qualification under the die-in-harness scheme of the Government of Manipur.

(iv) The said exercise is directed to be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(v) No costs.