Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 155 (CAL)

In Re v. Sujoy Kumar Pandit

2010-02-18

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, PRANAB KUMAR DEB

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of the sudden death of his father was initially rejected by the competent authority and subsequently the application filed by the petitioner before the learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2009 in the case of O.A. No. 1408 of 2002. 2. CHALLENGING the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that this claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on two-fold grounds, namely, on account of payment of terminal benefits to the family of the deceased employee and also on the ground of long lapse of almost 14 years after the death of the concerned employee, namely, the father of the petitioner herein. From the records, we find that the father of the petitioner was a Class-IV employee in the office of the respondent No. 5 herein and died in harness on July 22, 1995. The prayer was made by the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground on July 22, 1996, that is, within one year from the death of the employee concerned. The respondent authority took long five years to consider the claim of the said petitioner and ultimately by the letter dated September 11, 2001 rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the said petitioner did not submit any application for employment immediately after the death of the employee concerned. 3. THE one year delay on the part of the petitioner was fatal, according to the respondent authorities, while fact remains that the concerned respondent took long five years to consider the said prayer. THE claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was required to be considered on humanitarian ground along with the rules and procedures as were applicable in this regard. 4. THE petitioner herein was born on October 8, 1979 and therefore, he was very: much major on the date of rejection of his prayer by the respondent authorities on September 11, 2001 since the said petitioner was almost 22 years old at that time. 4. THE petitioner herein was born on October 8, 1979 and therefore, he was very: much major on the date of rejection of his prayer by the respondent authorities on September 11, 2001 since the said petitioner was almost 22 years old at that time. Immediately after rejection of the prayer by the respondent authorities, an application was filed by the petitioner before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in the year 2002 and the same was finally disposed of by the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2009, that is, almost after a period of seven years. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the respondent authorities and the learned Tribunal took almost 12 years to finally decide the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner herein. 5. THE learned Tribunal also held that in the present case terminal benefits can very well come under the purview of consideration without however, considering the actual financial condition of the family of the deceased employee. 6. IN the present case undoubtedly no document has been produced where from it would appear that the, financial condition of the family was strong enough to maintain themselves. In the case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors., reported in 2005(10) SCC 289 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held: 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. 7. IN an earlier decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. vs. Steel Authority of INdia Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2000(6) SCC 493 , 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 bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum 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 bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum 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 bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." 8. MR. Suman Ghosh, learned Counsel representing the State respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment can be rejected on the ground of financial condition of the family the deceased employee. MR. Ghosh further submits that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the claim for compassionate ground. Mr. Ghosh referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2008(11) SCC 384 . We fail to understand how the aforesaid judgment can be of any assistance to the respondents. 9. IN the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held that - "It may be true that in a given case, appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be denied only because the dependant of the deceased had been receiving some amount by way of family pension." 10. IN the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the several facts as are not available in the present case. IN the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the son and daughter of the appellant became major and furthermore, the appellant namely, the widow of the deceased employee who attained the age of 38 years by that time. The concerned authority in the aforesaid case was a charitable institution run on Government aid and undoubtedly one person was appointed in place of the deceased husband of the appellant which were also specifically considered by the Supreme Court while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the widow. The concerned authority in the aforesaid case was a charitable institution run on Government aid and undoubtedly one person was appointed in place of the deceased husband of the appellant which were also specifically considered by the Supreme Court while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment of the widow. Therefore, considering the aforesaid factors, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to grant any relief to the widow of the deceased employee even though it has been specifically observerd in the said decision that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied on the ground that the dependant of the deceased had been receiving some amount by way of family pension. 11. IN the present case, compassionate appointment cannot be denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the family of the deceased employee received terminal benefits. 12. WE also do not find any delay and/or laches and/or lapses on the part of the petitioner in the instant case, since the petitioner claimed compassionate appointment within one year after the death of his father. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground should have been favourably considered by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the order of rejection passed by the respondent authorities on September 11, 2001 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly, quashed. 13. FOR the reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner also cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is therefore, set aside. 14. SINCE a considerable time has already lapsed, We direct the respondent authorities particularly the Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Govt. of West Bengal and the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Burdwan to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of our aforesaid observations and findings and issue necessary orders for appointment in respect of the said petitioner to a suitable vacant post without any further delay but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. This writ petition is thus allowed. 15. IN the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 16. This writ petition is thus allowed. 15. IN the facts of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 16. LET a xerox plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the petitioner on usual undertakings.