Ngangom (Ongbi) Mayanglambam Sanahanbi Devi v. The State of Manipu

Judgment

1. The State of Manipur represented by Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District:- Imphal West, Manipur.

2. Director General of Police (DGP), Government of Manipur, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District:- Imphal West, Manipur.

3. Inspector General of Police (Adm.), Manipur, Imphal, Babupara, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District:- Imphal West, Manipur. WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 2

4. Commandant 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles, Imphal, Government of Manipur, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District:- Imphal West, Manipur. ---- Respondents

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN For the Petitioners For the Respondents Date of Hearing and Judgment & Order :: :: :: Mr. Leo Rommel S, Advocate Mr. H. Samarjit, GA

04.07.2022 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction on the respondents to appoint the second petitioner under die- in-harness scheme.

2. Heard Mr. Leo Rommel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.Samarjit, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

3. Mr. Leo Rommel, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are wife and son of the deceased Ngangom Kunjabihari Singh, who was working as A- Coy 1st Bn, Manipur Rifles, Imphal and had died on 22.1.2001 WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 3 due to harness. The deceased died leaving behind his mother, wife, son and daughter. After the death the first petitioner wife filed an application to the Hon’ble Minister for Home for appointment under die-in-harness scheme on 13.2.2001 with a copy to the fourth respondent/Commandant 1st Bn, Manipur Rifles. The said application was forwarded by the fourth respondent to the third respondent/Inspector General of Police (Admn). However, the said application for appointment under die-in-harness scheme was not considered by the respondents till today.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that since the first petitioner’s academic age has barred while waiting to appoint under die-in-harness scheme and in the meantime, the second petitioner who is the legal son of the deceased had completed his graduation, the second petitioner submitted an application on 14.9.2020 to the first respondent requesting to appoint him to a suitable post under die-in-harness scheme in the place of his mother since her application was not considered.

5. The learned counsel submitted respondents cancelled the proposal to appoint under die-in- WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 4 harness scheme on the ground that the second petitioner was minor aged at the time of death of his father. Aggrieved by the same, the second petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents to appoint him under die-in-harness scheme and the same has not been considered till date.

6. Mr. Leo Rommel, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged the concerned authority of Government of Manipur is liable to consider appointing the second petitioner under die-in-harness scheme, but the same is not yet considered till date. Because of the inaction of the concerned authority, the petitioners should not suffer from no appointment. Thus, a prayer is made to direct the concerned authority to appoint the second petitioner under die-in-harness scheme.

7. During the course of hearing, learned Government Advocate has produced a letter dated 1.4.2022 addressed by the Inspector General of Police (Amn) to the Additional Government Advocate, wherein it has been stated as under: WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 5 “Sir, Please refer to your office letter No.208/2021- GA(C)/561 dated 14.03.2022 addressed to the Director General of Police, Manipur among others on the above subject. In this regard, the required information are as given below: (i) Smt. Ngangom (Ongbi) Mayanglambam Sanahanbi Devi has been included in the waiting seniority list of Grade-IV appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme and she is listed at Sl. No.110 at present. (ii) There are 45 (forty five) vacant post of Grade-IV posts in Manipur Police department at present and only 10% of the total vacancy is to be reserved for appointment under Die-in- harness Scheme.”

8. The copy of the said letter has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who in turn submitted that appropriate orders may be passed by this Court in terms of the letter dated 1.4.2022. WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 6

9. On a perusal of the letter dated 1.4.2022, the Inspector General of Police (Amn) stated that the first petitioner has been included in the waiting seniority list of Grade-IV for appointment under die-in-harness scheme and her name appeared in the list at Serial No.110 at present. The said letter further states that there are 45 vacant posts of Grade-IV in Manipur Police Department at present and only 10% of the total vacancy is to be reserved for appointment under die-in-harness scheme.

10. It is apposite to mention that application for appointment under die-in-harness scheme of the first petitioner was originally submitted on 13.2.2001 and for the last 22 years, her application has not been considered by the respondent authorities. There is also no particulars produced by the respondent authorities to show the details about compassionate appointment given in the last 22 years. As could be seen from the writ petition, now the petitioner is aged 55 years and how it could be possible to appoint her under die- in-harness scheme by the respondent authorities is not known. For that, no proper explanation forthcoming from the side of the respondent authorities. WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 7

11. At this juncture, it is to be mentioned that the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognized as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. The philosophy behind giving compassionate appointment is just to help the family in harness to get over the immediate crisis due to the loss of sole breadwinner. This category of appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after certain period, when the crisis is over. More so, the financial status of the family is also to be looked into as per the scheme framed by the employer while giving compassionate appointment and such appointment cannot be conferred contrary to the parameters of the scheme.

12. It appears that since the academic age of the first petitioner has already barred while waiting under die-in-harness scheme, the second petitioner after completion of his WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 8 graduation submitted an application on 14.9.2020 requesting to enter his name under die-in-harness scheme instead of his mother. His mother, who is the first petitioner herein also gave her no objection for appointing the second petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme. By the order dated 19.10.2020, the Inspector General of Police (Adm) passed an order stating that the second respondent was 1 year, 6 months and 25 days only at the time of expiry of his father on 22.01.2001 and as per Para No.13 of the Office Memorandum dated 7.12.2017 of the Department of P&AR, the second petitioner should not be less than 15 years of age at the time of death of the Government servant. Hence, his proposal cannot be considered on the above ground.

13. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the orders dated 19.10.2020, 19.10.2020 and 30.11.2020, the second petitioner submitted a representation and the same has not been considered till date. On a perusal of the records, no such representation of the second petitioner is annexed to the writ petition and also copy of the same has not been produced by the petitioners during the course of the hearing. WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 9

14. The letter dated 1.4.2022 has not been seriously disputed by the petitioners and on the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioners agreed for the same and prayed that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following order: (i) The writ petition is disposed of. (ii) The respondent authorities directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the letter dated

1.4.2022 produced before this Court under die-in-harness scheme as per the seniority list maintained by the Respondents appoint petitioner No.2 by namely, Ngangom Suranjoy Singh, aged about 22 years, S/o (Late) Ngangom Kunjabihari Singh, a resident of Soibam Leikai, Ayangpalli Road, P.O. & P.S. WP(C) No. 537 of 2021 P a g e | 10 Porompat, District:- Imphal East, Manipur in the suitable post. (iii) No costs. JUDGE FR/NFR Sushil WP(C) No. 537 of 2021