Also heard Mr.D.Bhattacha ryya v. Nos. 2 to 6

The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit disputing the contention ra ised by the respondents. Petitioner has stated that the incident of death of her husband should be construed to be on duty and consequently, her case for c ompassionate appointment should be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the approach of the resp ondents to deny consideration to the petitioner is not justified. Petitioner’s h usband had died following heart attack just after the office hours. The same sho uld therefore be construed to be on duty to bring the case of the petitioner wit hin the ambit of the scheme formulated by the ASEB for compassionate appointment . She therefore, submits that necessary direction may be issued to the responden ts to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate groun d. Resisting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Bhattacha ryya, learned Standing Counsel, referring to the office order dated 30.4.2005, submits that appointment on compassionate ground in the service of ASEB and its successor companies would be limited to cases where serving employees are eith er killed due to extremist violence while on duty or in the case of death of t he employee due to accident or mishap while on duty. He submits that the unfo rtunate death of the petitioner’s husband after office hours would not be covere d by the situation provided in the office order dated 30.4.2005 and, therefore, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered. The rival submissions have been considered. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband late Hitendra Nath Sh arma was in regular service of the ASEB. It is also not in dispute that on 2.4.2 005 after closure of office and while leaving for home, he died due to a massive heart attack. As per medical certificate, his immediate cause of death was comp lete heart block. The office order dated 30.4.2005 restricts appointment on compassionate ground to only two situations, namely (a) in case of serving employee killed due to extremist violence while on duty and (b) in case of death of serving employe e due to accident or mishap while on duty. Obviously, the case of the petitioner would not be covered by situation (a). The moot question, therefore, is whether it would be covered by situation (b). As per dictionary meaning, ’mishap’ means an unlucky accident, while ’a ccident’ means an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintention ally. In view of above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the death of the petitioner’s husband on account of complete heart block just after the offic e hours would amount to a mishap. But whether it would amount to a mishap while on duty? The answer to this would have to be in the affirmative as because ther e was causal connection between the incident and the employment of the petiti oner’s husband. After discharging his duties, petitioner’s husband was returning home when the incident occurred. The above view finds support from a decision o f Karnataka High Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Su sheela and ors reported in II (2004)ACC 460. In that case, the question for cons ideration was whether the Workmen Commissioner was justified in assuming jurisdi ction in respect of death of a workman outside the course of his employment. The re, the workman had died due to cardiac arrest after office hours. The Karnataka High Court held that there was a causal connection between the incident and t he employment. The concept of ’during the course of employment’ can be extended from the time the workman leaves home to the time he returns home after complet ion of his duty. Whether an occurrence is accidental or not has to be determined from the point of view of the person who suffers the accident. If the occurre nce is unexpected and without any design, it may be said to be an accident. Contours of appointment on compassionate ground has already been delinea ted by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in a number of judicial pronounce ments. In view of the legal position having more or less crystallised, further d eliberation on the same may not be necessary. However, suffice it to say, the sc heme of appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule of recruitment. It is based on compassion. If that be so, once a case falls with in the broad parameters of the principles governing compassionate appointment, a liberal approach is called for. Viewed in the above context, the objection of the respondents to conside r the petitioner’s case appears to be hyper technical. In view of the decision of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das and Ors Vs.St ate of Assam and others reported in 2006(4) GLT 674 and Faziron Nessa Vs.State o f Assam and others reported in 2010(4) GLT 346 , the case of the petitioner wou ld now be required to be considered as a one time measure . Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 to 6 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law w ithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.