Q. Who were the advocates involved in the case RAVI KOCH vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS?

For Petitioner : Mr. R Sharon, Advocate, For the Petitioner(s); Mr. A Kumar, Advocate General with Ms. R Colney, GA, For the Respondent(s)

Q. What are the equivalent citations for RAVI KOCH vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS ?

The equivalence citation are LQ/MegHC/2019/8 ;

Q. What was the bench assigned for the case RAVI KOCH vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS?

HONBLE JUSTICE MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, C.J. ;

RAVI KOCH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS On 04 February, 2019

Ravi Koch v. State Of Meghalaya And Others

(High Court Of Meghalaya)

WP (C) No. 540 of 2018 | 04-02-2019

1. The case set up by the petitioner is that his father (Late) Digendra Koch had joined Meghalaya Police on 01.07.1998. He died on 17.07.1999 while he was deputed for operational duty at Shallang, West Khasi Hills District. The petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2017 after a lapse of 18 years. His application has been considered and rejected as has been conveyed to him vide communication No.PER(AR) 21/2011/831 dated 24.05.2018 wherein it has been mentioned that in terms of Departments O.M. No.PER(AR) 154/78/147 dated 11.12.1984, the application for employment on compassionate ground had to be submitted within one year from the date of premature death of the Government servant or from the date of acquiring necessary educational qualification. The father of the petitioner died in harness in the year 1999. Petitioner submitted his application on 23.03.2017 after a lapse of 18 years. The case of the petitioner being time barred, proposal for compassionate appointment has not been agreed to.

2. Learned Advocate General has rightly pointed out that there is no rules or regulations in place which would provide for considering the application for compassionate appointment after a lapse of 18 years. That apart, compassionate appointment has an object of providing livelihood to the family. When a family has survived for 18 years, claim for benefit on compassionate appointment, itself losses significance.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner at the time of the death of the deceased was a minor but has admitted that the petitioner has passed 10+2 in the year 2011 but has applied only in the year 2017.

4. Having regard to the governing O.M. dated 11.12.1984 as referred to above and the fact of the death of the deceased in the year 1999, there is no scope for entertaining this petition after a lapse of 18 years. Compassionate appointment admittedly is a departure from normal rules of appointment but same has laudable object of saving the deceaseds family from crisis and financial complications. Here in the instant case, the family has survived for 18 years.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly asked to show any rule or regulation which would provide for considering his application for appointment on compassionate ground even after a lapse of 18 years. He could not submit or refer to any rule or regulation.

6. For the stated reasons, petition being without merit is dismissed.

Advocate List

Bench

HON'BLE JUSTICE MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, C.J.

Eq Citations

LQ/MegHC/2019/8

Head Note

Municipalities — Municipal Service — Compassionate appointment — Delayed application — Held, compassionate appointment is a departure from normal rules of appointment but has laudable object of saving deceased's family from crisis and financial complications — In instant case, family had survived for 18 years — Further, there is no rule or regulation in place which would provide for considering application for compassionate appointment after a lapse of 18 years — Hence, petition for compassionate appointment dismissed — Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Service Law — Compassionate appointment — Delayed application (Paras 4 and 5)