STATE OF MANIPUR versus MD. RAJAODIN

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 107 · Decided: 28-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
STATE OF MANIPUR 
A 
v. 
MD. RAJAODIN 
AUGUST 28, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Compassionate appointment-Dependent of government servants-
Appointment under die-in-harness scheme-Deceased employee leaving c 
behind 10 year old son-Scheme coming into operation four years later 
stipulating time period for filing application-Application seeking 
appointment moved 17 years after employee's death-Subsequent issuance 
of letter offering a post but no appointment made-High Court directing 
appointment to be made-On appeal, held: Such appointments beir.g D 
compassionate appointments made to tide over the immediate difficulties, 
the request of appointment should be made as expeditiously the 
circumstances warrant-A/so direct recruitment banned under the Scheme, 
thus the letter offering a post does not confer any right to seek appointment-
Hence order of Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court set aside. 
E 
Respondent's father died in harness. After lapse of 17 years 
respondent applied for a post. Two years later, respondent was offered 
Grade-IV post but he was not appointed. Respondent filed a writ 
petition. Single Judge of High Court held that after having issued the 
letter respondent cannot be denied appointment under the die-in- F 
harness scheme on the ground of belated approach and directed the 
appellant-State to forthwith appoint the respondent but no appointment 
was made. He then filed writ application. Division Bench upheld the 
order of the Single Judge of High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-State contended that the respondent applied for a post G 
after 17 years of his father's death; that the scheme provides the time 
period within which an application bas to be filed; and that it also 
provides that the appointment will be made by the appointing authority 
after clearance from the Government department and as no approval 
has been given by the department, the letter offering the post to the H 
107 
• 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A respondent does not confer any right on him. 
Respondent contended that application was filed within the time 
period stipulated but there was no response; and that as the respondent 
was a minor at the time of his father's death he applied afresh later 
B and so the State cannot take the plea that the benefit cannot be 
extended to him. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The respondent's father died before the Office 
C Memorandum of 1984 dealing with die-in-harness scheme came into 
operation. In the memorandum a time period is stipulated. Since the 
scheme itself was not in operation when the respondent's father died, 
the time stipulation would not be strictly applicable to the instant case. 
Any one seeking relief thereunder has to at least move within the time 
D stipulated commencing from the date of the order. Nevertheless, 
keeping in view the object for which such compassionate appointments 
are made the minimum requirement is that the request for appointment 
should be made as expeditiously as the circumstances warrant. It could 
not be brought to the notice of this Court as to whether there was any 
E scheme in operation prior to the 1984 scheme. Even after the 1984 
scheme came into force, the application was filed after a long lapse of 
time. As the appointments under the die-in-harness scheme are made 
to tide over immediate difficulties, there is an inbuilt requirement of 
urgency in making the application. Though it was contended that the 
respondent was 10 years old when his father died and even if a 
F reasonable period, after he attained majority, is allowed, certainly the 
application after 17 years seeking appointment was highly belated. 
Therefore, he has no right much less a legal right to ask for an 
appointment. It is also on record that there was a· ban on direct 
recruitment under die-in-harness scheme as the scheme provided for 
G a clearance from the Government department. Hence, the order of 
Single Judge as upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court is set 
aside. However, this judgment shall not stand in the way of the 
appellant at its discretion giving effect to the orders contained in its 
letter dated 15.12.1999 at and from a future point of time, if permissible, 
H in accordance with law. [110-G-H, 111-A-C, 113-D-F] 
STATE v. MD. RAJAODIN [PASAYAT, J.] 
109 
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & Anr., JT (1996) 6 SCC A 
646; Life Insurance Corporati

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.