Urmila Devi vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

H.S. Thangkhiew, J

The petitioner is before this Court praying for directions for consideration by the respondents for appointment in any suitable vacant post in the Meghalaya Police, basically on the ground of compassionate appointment.

The brief facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was serving in the Meghalaya Police since 2008, and had met with an accident while on leave and expired on 19-04-2013. As the incident happened while the deceased employee was on leave, he was considered to have died while on duty.

Mr. S.Deb, learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner thereafter, had approached the authorities to consider her appointment on compassionate ground, and in this regard, had filed a representation on 10-10-2014 before the respondent No. 6 and that pursuant to the said representation, a recommendation had been given for consideration of the petitioner’s case. It is also submitted that a Certificate showing the financial hardship of the petitioner was also issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 10-07-2018. It is then submitted that though long years have passed, nothing has been forthcoming as the respondents have now taken a stand that with the expiry of the scheme for employment on compassionate ground, the petitioner cannot be accommodated. He finally prays that directions be issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment.

Ms. S.Shyam, learned GA on behalf of the respondents, in reply has submitted that with the cessation of the scheme under compassionate ground which was abolished w.e.f. 24-11-2010, the proposal for appointment of the writ petitioner was rejected. She further submits that it is not a case that the writ petitioner has been left destitute or without any financial support from the State respondents. In this context, learned GA has produced before the Court a statement dated 20-11-2024, which reflects that from 2013 itself, the petitioner has been given the terminal benefits of her deceased husband and that presently, family pension is also being paid. Learned GA has also placed reliance on certain judgments passed by this Court in support of her case. She lastly submits that the application of the petitioner also has been made after a considerable lapse of time and as such, at this stage deserves no further consideration.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Indeed, it is an undisputed proposition that compassionate appointment is allowed or granted to family members of deceased employees to tide over imminent financial hardships. In most cases, the appointment of compassionate ground is made under the scheme formulated for the specific purpose and in the State of Meghalaya, though such scheme had existed, the same however, stood abolished w.e.f. 24-11-2010. As such, by the abolition of this scheme, no further appointment on compassionate ground can been made.

This Court has also noted that recommendation had been made by the respondent No. 6 for consideration of the case of the petitioner, but considering the fact that, firstly, the writ petitioner is receiving financial assistance, secondly, that the scheme for compassionate appointment no longer exists and thirdly, in view of the lapse of time, no grounds have been made out for any directions to be issued from this Court.

Accordingly, in view of the observations made above, the matter is closed and disposed of.

The communication dated 20-11-2024 is made part of the record and marked as ‘X’.