The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that Compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule of public employment as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the consideration of any such claim can be made strictly by the scheme framed by the employer.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the employee died in harness while working as an L.D.C. under the Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura. The son of the employer applied for the compassionate appointment. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is less than 17 years of age. Thereafter, Respondent no. 2 requested the petitioner’s mother to receive financial assistance instead of compassionate appointment to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) only. However, the Petitioner chose to go for a compassionate appointment. Therefore, the Petitioner filed the Writ Petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that compassionate appointment being beneficial legislation directed consideration of the case of the concerned writ petitioner/candidate by exercising the „Power to Relax‟ under Clause -18 of the die-in-harness scheme.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the said scheme is framed by the government. Therefore, this Court, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, should not endeavour to rewrite the scheme by lowering the age limit as it may also create a bad precedent.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the compassionate appointment is a general exception to the general rule of public employment as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the consideration of any such claim can be made strictly by the scheme framed by the employer.
The court noted that the Petitioner was less than 17 years of age. Therefore, the decision to reject the claim cannot be found fault with. Furthermore, there exists a clause 18, ‘Power to Relax’, which is to be exercised in cases where it is necessary or expedient to do so for reasons to be recorded.
Based on these considerations, the court granted the liberty to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority for relaxation of the „Age limit‟ criteria under Clause-7 by invoking Clause-18, which is the „Power to Relax‟ with supporting facts and circumstances.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court disposed of the present petition.
Case Title: Shri Mrinmoy Karmakar V. The State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Case No.: WP(C) No.807 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Pal, Advocate, Ms. Maitri Majumder, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
