Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 90 (CAL)

Swati Chatterjee v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-02-02

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, PRANAB KUMAR DEB

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. BOTH the parties are represented by the learned Advocate. 2. SINCE the facts are not disputed, no opportunity is to be granted to the respondents to file affidavits in the matter. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of the prayer for employment on compassionate ground by the Director of Health Services, Govt. of West Bengal. 3. CHALLENGING the said order passed by the Director of Health Services, Govt. of West Bengal rejecting the prayer for employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, an application was filed before the learned West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and the said learned Tribunal by the order dated 26th August, 2009, dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner on merits. 4. UNDISPUTEDLY, the husband of the petitioner who was a Medical Officer attached to S.S.K.M. Hospital died in harness on 17th September, 2000 leaving behind the wife and two daughters. The petitioner herein submitted an application on October 11, 2000 praying for appointment to a suitable post on compassionate ground. Ultimately, the aforesaid prayer was rejected by the Director of Health Services, West Bengal by the Memo, dated 20th May, 2002. The petitioner immediately thereafter filed the application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal challenging the said decision of the Director of Health Services, West Bengal. Unfortunately, the respondent authorities herein took considerable time to file affidavits in the matter before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal finally decided the application of the petitioner almost after a long lapse of seven years.The object of granting compassionate appointment to a member of the family of the deceased employee is undisputedly to enable the said family to tide over the sudden financial crisis. on account of the sudden death of the only earning member of the family. 5. IN the present case, the husband of the petitioner was a Doctor and suddenly died in harness while serving in S.S.K.M. Hospital as Medical Officer. On account of the aforesaid sudden demise of the husband, the petitioner and her two daughters are facing tremendous financial crisis. The respondent authorities unfortunately considered the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner mechanically and rejected the claim for compassionate appointment without appreciating the fact that the family pension was not enough to maintain the family of the deceased employee apart from incurring necessary expenses towards education of the two daughters of the said deceased employee. 6. The respondent authorities unfortunately considered the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner mechanically and rejected the claim for compassionate appointment without appreciating the fact that the family pension was not enough to maintain the family of the deceased employee apart from incurring necessary expenses towards education of the two daughters of the said deceased employee. 6. THE family pension being one kind of deferred payment and earned by deceased cannot be a valid ground for denying compassionate appointment to a member of the family of the deceased employee. Furthermore, the family pension would stop with the death of the widow of the deceased. THE two daughters of Doctor are minor and unmarried and, therefore, the respondent authorities should have taken into consideration of the aforesaid factor while considering the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner herein. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tapan Kumar Barman v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2009 (1) CHN 23 considered the identical issue with regard to denial of compassionate appointment and the said Division Bench following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., reported in 2000 (6) SCC 493 specifically held that the payment of terminal benefit on account of the death of the employee concerned cannot be taken into consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. THE relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra) is also quoted hereunder: - "13.................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 being made available to the family - this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. THE feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken 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. 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. THE respondent authorities herein took considerable time to file affidavit in the matter and the application filed before the tribunal was decided after a long lapse of seven years. After the sudden death of the husband, the petitioner applied before the competent authority for granting compassionate appointment without any delay and immediately after rejection of the said prayer by the Director of Health Services, West Bengal appropriate application was filed before the learned Tribunal which was ultimately disposed of after a lapse of long seven years. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered after a long lapse of eight years 11 months when fact remains the petitioner herein approached every corner for redressal of her grievances in relation to claim for compassionate appointment without any delay. 9. THERE is also no dispute that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee has not been improved on account of any subsequent development. THEREfore, we hold that the need of financial assistance to the family of the deceased employee is very much in existence till date and the claim of the petitioner can also not be denied on the ground that she is now about 48 years since the compassionate appointment to an employee is a special appointment on humanitarian ground under special circumstances. 10. FOR the aforesaid reasons, the order passed by the Director of Health Services under Memo, dated 20th May, 2002 cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, quashed. For the identical reasons, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal on 26.08.09 in the case O.A. No. 1297 of 2002 cannot be sustained and the same is also set aside. 11. WE direct the respondent authorities herein to take immediate appropriate steps for granting compassionate appointment to the applicant to a suitable post within two months from the date of communication of this order upon relaxing the age bar as a special case. 12. THIS application thus stands allowed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Let a xerox plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the petitioner on usual undertakings.