Talo Tama vs State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others

N.S. Singh, J.—Heard Mr. T. Michi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also Mr. T. Son, learned senior Govt. Advocate for the State Respondents. After the death of his father the Petitioner herein approached the competent authority/Respondents concerned for his appointment to the post of Field Attendant on compassionate ground under the related Die-in-harness Scheme or in Ors. words, related Govt. Office memorandum pertaining to the appointment on compassionate ground by contending inter alia, that his father late Talo Taka died on 10.1.2000 leaving behind 5(five) legal heirs including the Petitioner who is the eldest son of the deceased and his mOrs. .

According to the Petitioner, late Talo Taka was the only bread earner in Ors. words, sole earning member of the family and. he died in harness while he was serving as Cattle Attendant in Composite Live stock Farm, Nirjuli. It is also the case of the Petitioner that despite the submission of Succession Certificate etc. to the appropriate authority, the authority concerned paid no heed to the same till date without any justification. Having no alternative, the Petitioner approached this Court for an appropriate order and direction in the matter. Mr. T. Michi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Respondents authority had given appointment to Shri Markar Riram against the post of Cattle Attendant which fell vacant due to the death of the Petitioner''s father vide, Government office letter/order dated 25.5.2000 as in Annexure-D to the writ petition instead of affording the same to the writ Petitioner. According to Mr. Michi learned Counsel. The Respondents had ignored the case of the writ Petitioner rather, failed to perform their lawful duties conferred upon them particularly they failed to take necessary action and steps in terms of the related office memorandum pertaining to the appointment on compassionate ground. At the hearing, Mr. T. Son, learned senior Govt. Advocate argued that the Petitioner misled the court and made false representations in filing the writ petition inasmuch as, the State Respondents had given appointment to the writ Petitioner by engaging himself as Contingent paid attendant, Nirjuli so as to enable him to maintain and support his family members. This statement made by the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate at the bar is not disputed by Mr. T. Michi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as there is no reply affidavit or rejoinder affidavit from the end of the Petitioner.

Be that as it may, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground or under Die-in-harness Scheme arises only when a sole earning member (Govt. employee) dies-in-harness. A bare perusal of the Govt. Office Memorandum as in Annexure-C shows that the Government is to afford immediate need or assistance to the family members of the Govt. Servant who dies-in-harness and to rehabilitate the family members in distress and to save them rather, to protect them from hardship faced by them and, such appointment should not be delayed at any cost and the State Respondents should make its best endeavor to afford such appointment to the needy and rightful claimants or persons who claim appointment on compassionate ground. At this stage, I hereby recall the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein the Apex Court held thus:

It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.

Likewise, the Apex Court also dealt with the issue pertaining to the object of making appointment on compassionate ground which is nothing but to provide immediate sustenance to dependent family members of the deceased employee. This justification finds its place in a case between Dhalla Ram, Petitioner v. Union of India and Ors. Respondents reported in AIR 1999 SC 564.

From the established principles of law laid down by the Apex Court. It is seen that it is the lawful duties of the State Respondents/competent authority to take care of the cases pertaining to the claim for appointment on compassionate ground so as to enable the needy family members of the deceased Government employees to get the relief from its best employer like, the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is also made clear that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recruitment but, it is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the dependent family members of the deceased employee from distress.

Keeping in view of all these established principles of law and also the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the Respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the Petitioner sympathetically as the Petitioner is claiming for appointment on compassionate ground for survival of himself and family members as the legal heir of the deceased employee on this beautiful Earth and this Court hope and trust that certainly the State Respondents shall give appointment to the writ Petitioner either to the post of Cattle Attendant as claimed by the writ Petitioner if there is a vacancy and if not, to a suitable post commensurate with his education qualification as early as possible preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from today or in the alternative, to regularise Ms contingent services in a Grade-IV post so mat the family members of a deceased Govt. employee may feel that justice has been done to themfrom the end of the State Respondents.

For the reasons, observations and direction made above, this writ petition is disposed of but no order as to costs.