AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 4 and the learned counsel
for the 5th Respondent.
The Appellant is the sister of Dilip Kumar Netam who died in harness while serving the Government. The 5th Respondent is his widow. The
Appellant was appointed on compassionate ground, stated to have been, with the consent of the 5th Respondent-widow. Thereafter, the 5th
Respondent objected to the appointment of the Petitioner/Appellant. That resulted in the Government deciding to remove the Appellant from service.
The learned Single Judge has upheld that decision and Appellant/Writ Petitioner's challenge has been repelled. Hence, this writ appeal.
It is not in dispute that there is a policy dated 14.06.2013 which applied at the time of the death of Dilip Kumar Netam. It is the Scheme for
compassionate appointment. It provides the modality that State would follow to make such an appointment. The learned Single Judge adverted to
Clauses 5 and 6 of that Scheme. The learned Single Judge held that Clause 5 enumerates those persons who could be appointed on compassionate
ground. The sister of a married Government servant who died in harness is not included in that list. Therefore, Clause 5 of the policy does not apply in
favor of the Appellant. Clause 6 applies only to the dependents or relatives of unmarried Government servant who die in harness. That clause could
not apply to anybody claiming compassionate appointment referable to the death of Dilip Kumar Netam, who admittedly had married to 5th
Respondent. For these reasons, we do not find any ground to hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge resting on the correct
interpretation and application of Clauses 5 and 6 of the policy documents could be treated as unsustainable.
Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Clause 20 of the Scheme provides that once a person has been appointed on
compassionate ground referable to the death of a Government servant who died in harness, no other dependent could make a claim. That clause is to
the effect that there cannot be more than one compassionate appointment in relation to the death of one person who is a Government servant and who
unfortunately died in harness. What is sought to be prevented through Clause 20 of the Scheme is compassionate appointments being given to more
than one person with reference to one Government servant who died in harness. That clause does not apply to case in hand.
The appeal, therefore, fails. In the result this writ appeal is dismissed.