STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.
A
·-j
v.
SMT. A. ONGBI MEMCHA DEVI AND ANR.
APRIL 17, 1995
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
Appointment on compassionate grounds-Employee dying in har-
ness-i!is widow appointed on compassionate grounds-After several years c
Writ petition filed by her for direction to appoint the brother-in-law (brother
of the deceased}-High Court allowing the Writ petition-Validity
of-Held-Widow already appointed and continuing in service-Brother not
. a dependent-Not entitled to further employment on compassionate grounds.
,
The first respondent was appointed on 1.1.1974 in the service of the D
~i
appellant State on compassionate grounds as her husband died in bar·
ness. She continues In service and even got promoted to the next higher
post. In 1991, she filed a writ petition in the High Court to appoint her
brother-in-law (brother or the deceased) on compassionate grounds. The
writ petition was allowed. The review petition filed by the State against the
order was dismissed. Hence these appeals.
E
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the High Court's orders, this
court
HELD : Brother is not a dependent of the deceased employee who F
died in harness. Since on compassionate grounds, the widow has already
been appointed and she bas been continuing in service they cannot claim
further employment on the basis or the death of the employee in harness.
[368-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5710 of G
1995 Etc.
~ J
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.94 of. the Gauhati High
Court in C.R.No. 97 of 1991.
V.C. Mahajan and S. Janani for the Appellants.
H
367
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1995] 3 S.C.R.
A
The following Order of the Co1Jrt was delivered:
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order
dated 22.2.1994 passed in Civil Review Application No. 17 of 1993 in
B C.R.No. 97of1991 and CR 97/91 of the High Court of Gauhati at its Bench
at Imphal. One, A. Raghumani Singh, was appointed in the service of
Manipur State and he died in harness. Therefore, his widow Smt. Aram-
bam Ongbi Memcha Devi, was appointed as L.D.C. on 1.1.1974 on com-
passionate grounds and she was promoted as U.D.C. on October 13, 1981.
In 1991, she filed a writ petition in the High Court for direction to appoint
C her brother-in-law on compassionate grounds. The writ petition was al-
lowed by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 97 of 1991, against which a
Review Petition was filed. As stated earlier, the Review Petition was also
dismissed. Thus, these two appeals by special leave. Though time was
taken for ftling counter by the respondent, no counter has been filed.
D
E
The brother is not a dependent of the deceased employee who died
in harness. Since on compassionate grounds, the widow has already been
appointed and she has been continuing in serviced they cannot claim
further employment on the basis of the death of the employee in harness.
The High Court was, therefore, not correct.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The orders of the High Court
are set aside. In the facts and circumstances no costs.
G.N.
Appeals allowed.
Lex