Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a claim for compassionate appointment in the Manipur State service. A. Raghumani Singh was appointed in the service of Manipur State and died in harness. His widow, Smt. Arambam Ongbi Memcha Devi, was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.) on 01.01.1974 on compassionate grounds. She was subsequently promoted as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) on 13.10.1981. In 1991, she filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gauhati at its Imphal Bench, seeking a direction to appoint her brother-in-law on compassionate grounds. The High Court allowed the writ petition in Civil Rule No.97 of 1991. A review application filed against that order, being Civil Review Application No.17 of 1993 in C.R. No.97 of 1991, was dismissed on 22.02.1994. The State of Manipur and others, aggrieved by the High Court's orders, filed appeals by special leave before the Supreme Court. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a brother-in-law of a deceased government employee can claim compassionate appointment when the widow of the deceased employee has already been appointed on compassionate grounds and continues in service. The State contended that the brother-in-law was not a dependent of the deceased employee and that the widow's prior appointment precluded any further claim. The respondent did not file a counter affidavit despite time being granted. The Supreme Court observed that the brother is not a dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness. Since the widow had already been appointed on compassionate grounds and was continuing in service, the family could not claim further employment on the basis of the death of the employee. Therefore, the High Court was not correct in allowing the writ petition. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court, and imposed no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Dependent and Further Claim - Not mentioned - The High Court had allowed a writ petition directing appointment of the deceased employee's brother-in-law on compassionate grounds. The Supreme Court held that the brother is not a dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness. Since the widow had already been appointed on compassionate grounds and was continuing in service, the family could not claim further employment on the basis of the same death. The High Court was, therefore, not correct. The appeals were allowed and the High Court orders set aside, with no order as to costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a brother-in-law of a deceased government employee is entitled to compassionate appointment when the deceased's widow has already been appointed on compassionate grounds and is continuing in service.
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed. The orders of the High Court were set aside. No costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment is restricted to dependents of the deceased employee
- a brother-in-law is not a dependent
- once the widow has been appointed on compassionate grounds and continues in service
- no further claim arises.
