Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1201 (CAL)

Sujit Kumar Datta v. United Commercial Bank

2010-09-17

MD.ABDUL GHANI, PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THIS application for stay has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 20th October, 2009 whereby and whereunder a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on merits. 2. THE claim of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent Bank and the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition approved the said decision of the respondent Bank. Going through the impugned judgment and order under appeal, we find that while rejecting the claim of the appellant/petitioner for employment on compassionate ground, respondent Bank took into consideration the total amount of terminal benefits received by the family of the deceased employee apart from family pension. The respondent Bank also took into consideration that the legal heirs of the deceased employee are the owners of one single storeyed building where they are residing. 3. THE learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner submits that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground of payment of terminal benefits under the Rules. 4. THE learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner referred to and relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., reported in 2005(10) SCC 289 in support of his aforesaid argument wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "6. THE Scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. THErefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules." The learned Counsel of the appellant/petitioner also relied on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India and Ors., reported in 2000(6) SCC 493 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically observed: "But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lumpsum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the griefstricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lumpsum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the griefstricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." 5. THE learned Counsel of the respondent Bank submits that the financial condition of the deceased employee should be taken into consideration while deciding the claim with regard to the compassionate appointment. 6. IN the present case, it has been specifically submitted on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the condition of the family of the deceased employee is penurious and immediate need of financial assistance still exists since none of the members of the family of the deceased employee is in employment. The learned Advocate of the respondent Bank, however, submits that the employee concerned died-in-harness only 8 months before attaining the age of superannuation. There is undisputedly no age restriction in the matter of considering the claim for compassionate appointment. 7. THE appellant/petitioner herein claimed employment on compassionate ground immediately after the sudden demise of his father. Unfortunately, a considerable time has already been consumed on account of initiation of the legal proceedings. 8. INITIALLY, the claim of the appellant/petitioner for employment on compassionate ground was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court while deciding the writ petition bearing W.P. No. 2750 (W) 2003 which was disposed of on May 19, 2003, wherein a specific direction was issued to the respondent Bank to consider the claim of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment. The respondent Bank preferred an appeal challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge and the appeal being F.M.A. No.365 of 2004 was disposed of on February 21, 2005 with a direction upon the respondent authority to consider the case of the appellant/petitioner. 9. EVEN thereafter, the claim of the appellant/petitioner was not considered in an appropriate manner following the settled principles of law. 10. FURTHERMORE, no document has yet been produced before this Court wherefrom it would appear that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee has improved subsequent to the death of the employee concerned. 9. EVEN thereafter, the claim of the appellant/petitioner was not considered in an appropriate manner following the settled principles of law. 10. FURTHERMORE, no document has yet been produced before this Court wherefrom it would appear that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee has improved subsequent to the death of the employee concerned. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is still penurious. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra) and Govind Prakash Verma (supra), we are of the opinion that the claim of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected in the present case on the ground that the family of the deceased employee received terminal benefits specially when it has not been established that the said family of the deceased employee has sufficient income to maintain themselves. 11. FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove, we hold that the claim of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment was wrongfully and illegally rejected by the concerned authority of the respondent Bank without proper and valid grounds. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition ex parte without properly considering the settled principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra) and Govind Prakash Verma (supra). 12. IN the aforesaid circumstances, we quash the impugned decision of the respondent Bank as communicated by the General Manager (Personnel) of the said Bank by the letter dated 5th April, 2005 and also set aside the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge on 20th October, 2009. Since a considerable time has already lapsed, we direct the respondent Bank particularly the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue appropriate order considering the claim of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment to a suitable vacant post without any further delay but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communicate of this order upon taking note of our aforesaid observations and findings. 13. THIS application thus stands allowed. 14. IN view of the aforesaid order, no purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal is also treated as on day's list and the same is disposed of accordingly. 13. THIS application thus stands allowed. 14. IN view of the aforesaid order, no purpose will be served in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal is also treated as on day's list and the same is disposed of accordingly. In the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.