Manipur High Court
Shri Ksh. Romen Singh vs The State Of Manipur Through The ... on 18 April, 2023
signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
LHAINEI Digitally
by
CHONG LHAINEICHONG
HAOKIP
HAOKIP Date: 2023.04.18
13:35:38 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
W.P.(C) No. 436 of 2022
Shri Ksh. Romen Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o (L) Ksh.
Iboyaima Singh, resident of Singjamei Wangma Kshetri Leikai,
P.O. Kakwa, P.S. Singjamei and District Imphal East, Manipur.
... Petitioner
-Versus -
1. The State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary (Power)
Govt. of Manipur, Imphal, Manipur.
2. The Chief Secretary (DP in charge), Government of Manipur,
Imphal, Manipur.
3. The Administrative Officer (Power), Govt. of Manipur, Electricity
Junction, Imphal Manipur-795001.
4. The Manipur State Power Distribution Company Limited
(MSPDCL) through the Managing Director, MSPDCL, Manipur,
New Directorate Building near 2nd M.R. Gate, Imphal-Dimapur
Road, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
For the Petitioner : Mr. Th. Khagemba, Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. A. Vashum, G.A.
Date of Hearing : 30.03.2023
Date of Judgment & Order : 18.04.2023
Judgment & Order
[1] Heard Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents.
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 1
The present writ petition had been filed praying for quashing
and setting aside the impugned order dated 26.05.2022 issued by the
Deputy Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur, rejecting the claim of
the petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme in the
Electricity Department, coupled with a prayer for directing the respondents
to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Lineman/Junior Technical
Assistant within a stipulated period.
[2] The facts of the present case in a nutshell is that the father of
the petitioner, who was serving as Head Lineman at Senapati Division in
the Electricity Department during his life time, died on 23.11.2002 while on
duty due to electrocution.
After the expiry of the petitioner's father, no application for
appointing any of his dependence under the Die-in-harness scheme could
be submitted immediately to the Government as the scheme for
appointment under the Die-in-harness was already abolished by the
Government by issuing an order dated 15.06.2002.
[3] After four and half years from the date of abolishing the
scheme for appointment under the Die-in-harness, the State Government
issued an order dated 16.12.2006 restoring the said Die-in-harness
scheme with certain conditions. One of the conditions as contain in the
said restoration order is that the families of the Government servant who
died-in-harness during the period from 15.06.2002 up to the date of
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 2
restoration of the die-in-harness scheme will also be covered under the
scheme with immediate effect.
[4] After the restoration of the Die-in-harness scheme on
16.12.2006, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application dated
11.05.2007 to the Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department,
Manipur, requesting for appointment of the petitioner's elder brother, viz.,
Ksh. Roshan Singh under the Die-in-harness scheme. However, no
process was taken up by the authorities for consideration of the said
application. Subsequently, the State Government issued an Office
Memorandum dated 06.06.2007 issuing certain clarification to address the
issues relevant to early disposal of the claim for appointment under the
Die-in-harness scheme. Some of the clarification which are relevant with
the present case are reproduced herein under:-
"i. The Die-in-Harness Scheme was abolished vide orders
dated 15-6-2002. The OM of even No. dated 29-10-
2002 clearly states that no application for appointment
under the Die-in-Harness Scheme should be received.
Therefore, all applications submitted in between 15-6-
2002 and 16-12-2006 shall be treated as invalid
applications."
"ii. Applicants whose applications have been treated
invalid as above should submit fresh application to the
concerned Department within 2(two) months from the
date of issue of this OM."
"iii. The seniority of the applicants shall be prepared based
on the date of expiry of the deceased Government
servant in respect of the above group of applicants. In
respect of deaths, which occurred after 16.12.2006, the
seniority shall be based on the date of receipt of
applications."
"iv. The Head of Department concerned after considering
the applications received should either submit the
completed proposal to the Government for appointment
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 3
under the Die-in-harness Scheme or reject the
application within one year from the date of receipt of
the application."
[5] After issuance of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated
06.06.2007, the petitioner's mother submitted another application dated
17.12.2008 to the Chief Engineer (Power), requesting to appoint the
petitioner in place of the petitioner's elder brother under the Die-in-harness
scheme as the petitioner elder brother become over-aged.
The second application was duly processed by the authorities
and the Administrative Officer (Power) wrote a letter dated 28.04.2009 to
the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal East District, Manipur, requesting to
furnish the required information in connection with the appointment of the
petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme. After receiving the required
information and all the necessary documents in connection with the
appointment of the petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme, the Chief
Engineer (Power) Electricity Department, Government of Manipur,
submitted to the Commissioner (Power), Government of Manipur, the
proposal for appointment of 24 applicants, including the petitioner for
appointing them to the post of Assistant Lineman under the Die-in-harness
scheme and also requesting to convey the approval of the Government for
appointment of the said applicants, under a letter dated 05.11.2012.
Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur,
issued a consolidated seniority list dated 01.02.2017 of applicants pending
for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme in the Power
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 4
Department. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner is at Sl.
No. 9.
[6] The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(Personnel Division), Government of Manipur, issued another Office
Memorandum dated 01.04.2011 giving certain relaxation as a special case
and as a one time measure so as to enable to dispose of the pending
cases for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. One of the
relaxation given under Para 1 (iii) of the said Office Memorandum is to
consider the 2nd nominee by counting his/her seniority from the date of
receipt of the 1st application where applicant had to be changed because
of compelling circumstances which are beyond his/her control such as
Death/Marriage in case of woman candidate/mental disorder, disability due
to accident of the first applicant.
When the process for appointment of the petitioner and other
applicants under the Die-in-harness scheme reach the Department of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms, the said Department seek certain
clarification in respect of 19 applicants including the petitioner. In respect
of the petitioner, the Department of Personnel asked for furnishing copy of
the initial application and the condition for change of nominee as per Para
1 (iii) of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2011. The required
information as sought for was promptly furnished by the Administrative
Department, however, no further action with regard to the appointment of
the petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme was taken up.
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 5
[7] When the petitioner came to know that some of the juniors
who are at Sl. No. 16 & 19 of the consolidated seniority list of applicants
have been given appointment by superseding the petitioner, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 375 of 2018
for redressing his grievances. During the pendency of the said writ petition,
the Under Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur wrote a letter dated
16.03.2019 addressed to the Additional Advocate General, Manipur,
wherein it is stated that there are 86 numbers of posts of Junior Technical
Assistant reserved @ of 20% in Manipur State Power Distribution
Company Limited for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme and
that the case of the petitioner was referred to the Department of Personnel
and Administrative Reforms for their concurrence to which the Department
of Personnel had observed that the petitioner did not fulfil the condition laid
down in Para 1 (iii) of the DP's Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2011 and
as such, the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms did not
give its concurrence for appointment of the petitioner under the Die-in-
harness scheme.
[8] The aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed
of by this Court by an order dated 26.09.2019 by directing the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioner under the Office Memorandum dated
06.06.2007 and to complete the exercise within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. When the authorities
failed to implement the direction given by this Court and when the
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 6
petitioner came to know that in the latest seniority list of applicants
pending for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme, his name was
not included and one of his junior is at Sl. No. 1 of the list, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing the contempt case against the concerned
authorities and only after filing of the said contempt case, the Deputy
Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur, issued an order dated
26.05.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under
the Die-in-harness scheme. The reasons given by the authorities in the
said order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that at the time of
considering the case of the petitioner, the Department of Personnel and
Administrative Reforms made observation that in the Office Memorandum
dated 06.06.2007 under which the case of the petitioner is to be
considered as per directions given by this Court, there is no provisions for
appointment of 2nd nominee under the Die-in-harness scheme and
therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment under the
said scheme and that even though appointment of a 2nd nominee is
allowed under DP's Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2011, the case of
the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as he did not fulfil the
condition for changing of nominee as per Para 1 (iii) of the said Office
Memorandum. On the basis of the aforesaid observation made by the DP,
the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-harness
scheme has been rejected as being devoid of merit. Having been
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 7
aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the said order by filing the present writ
petition.
[9] In the present case, only the respondent No. 1 filed its
counter affidavit and none of the other respondents filed any counter
affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondent
No. 1 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment under the
Die-in-harness scheme is the same as are given in the impugned order
dated 26.05.2022.
[10] I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties at length and also carefully examined the
materials available on record. In my considered view, the object and
purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the
deceased employee's family, which lost its bread-winner suddenly, and to
come to its rescue in such financial dire straits. Therefore, such an
appointment needs to be made shortly after the dead of the employee
concerned. It is well settled that compassionate appointment are not to be
treated as a separate mode or method of recruitment and they are only a
welfare measure put in place to come to the aid of bereaved families that
are torn apart by the abrupt loss of the sole earning member. However, in
practice, it is seen that due to lack of vacancies or for any other reasons,
such appointments are kept pending through no fault of the family member
of the deceased employees who had applied for such benefit. The case in
hand is one of such. The petitioner's father died on 23.11.2002, a long
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 8
time back and though the initial application was made on 11.05.2007
(16.05.2007), just after restoration of the Die-in-harness scheme after its
abolition on 15.06.2002, nothing came out of it even after two decades
thereafter, till the petitioner's claim was rejected on 26.05.2022, that too
only on the pains of contempt proceedings.
[11] The ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for his
appointment in Die-in-harness scheme as given by the authorities in the
impugned order as well as in the counter affidavit is that under the DP's
Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2007 under which the case of the
petitioner is to be considered as per directions given by this Court, there is
no provisions for appointment of 2nd nominee, therefore, the petitioner's
case cannot be considered for appointment under the said Office
Memorandum and that even though appointment of a 2 nd nominee under
the Die-in-harness scheme is allowed under the DP's Office Memorandum
dated 01.04.2011, the petitioner did not fulfil the condition for changing of
nominee as provided under Para 1 (iii) of the said Office Memorandum
dated 01.04.2011 and as such, his case could not be considered for
appointment and accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for his
appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme had been rejected as
devoid of merit.
[12] In the present case, just after restoration of the Die-in-
harness scheme on 16.12.2006, the petitioner's mother submitted an
application dated 11.05.2007 to the Chief Engineer (Power), Government
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 9
of Manipur requesting for appointment of the petitioner's elder brother Ksh.
Roshan Singh under the Die-in-harness scheme, however, the authorities
never process or acted upon the said application. Subsequently, the
petitioner's mother submitted another application dated 17.12.2008 to the
Chief Engineer (Power), Electricity Department, Manipur requesting for
appointing the petitioner in place of the petitioner's elder brother under the
Die-in-harness scheme on the ground that the petitioner's elder brother
has become age barred. On submission of the 2nd application, the
authorities acted upon the said application and process for considering the
case of the petitioner for his appointment under the Die-in-harness
scheme and in fact, the Administrative Department submitted proposal for
appointment of the petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme. In view of
the above, this Court is of the considered view that there was never an
actual change of nominee on record in favour of the petitioner, inasmuch
as, the first application for appointment of the petitioner's elder brother was
never acted upon or process by the authorities and the said application is
deemed to have been superseded by the 2nd application and accordingly,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be treated or
termed as a 2nd nominee as is now being claimed by the authorities. In
fact, as there was never a change of nominee and the petitioner is the only
claimant being considered by the authorities for appointment under the
Die-in-harness scheme, his claim cannot be rejected on the ground that
such claim is barred by the DP's Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2011.
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 10
There is, thus, no impediment to the petitioner being given appointment on
compassionate ground under the Die-in-harness scheme.
[13] In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
and for the reasons and finding given hereinabove, this writ petition is
allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated
26.05.2022 and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner
either as an Assistant Lineman as proposed by the Administrative
Department or as a Junior Technical Assistant against one of the 86
vacant posts as mentioned in the letter dated 16.03.2019 of the Under
Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
disposed of. Parties are to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Lhaineichong
WP(C) No. 436 of 2022 Page 11
