The single-judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that a claim for a compassionate appointment can be raised only in consonance with such a scheme existing under the organization as it is an exception to the general rule of appointment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the mother of the Petitioner died as a regular employee of the Respondent having been regularised while under the deputation from the Power Department of the Government of Tripura. The employees were covered under the Die-in-harness Scheme as per a memorandum issued by the General Administration (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura. However, once the services of such employees as the petitioner’s mother were absorbed into the Corporation, they no longer remained employees of the State Government. Therefore, they were taken out of the cover of the Die-in-Harness scheme prevalent under the State Government which has been revised from time to time. On this ground, the application for a compassionate appointment was rejected. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner has approached the present court.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that since the Corporation has not framed any such scheme for a compassionate appointment or Die-in-harness scheme, full-time employees under regular employment of the Corporation are not governed by any such scheme.
The Court furthermore observed that a compassionate appointment claim may only be made in accordance with an established program in the organization as it deviates from the normal appointment rules as stipulated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that no appointments on compassionate grounds could have been granted in the favour of Petitioner.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Petition.
Case Title: Sri Uttam Kumar Paul V. The State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Case No.: WP(C) No.492 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. B. N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.J. Saha, Advocate.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
