Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 804 (CAL)

Manas Ranjan Kumar v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-08-27

ANINDITA ROY SARASWATI, NISHITA MHATRE

body2012
JUDGMENT Anindita Roy Saraswati, J. 1. The petitioner Manas Ranjan Kumar has challenged the order of West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in connection with O.A. No. 2938 of 2005 rejecting thereby the prayer of the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner's father was a permanent employee under the Director of Health Service, Government of West Bengal since 26.10.1961 and he died on 14.07.1998 when he was working as Block Sub-Inspector, Egra Block Primary Heath Centre, Egra, Medinipur. He died leaving behind him the petitioner and three daughters out of whom two were unmarried. The mother of the petitioner died in 1996. 2. The petitioner made an application before the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Medinipur in the year 1999 for employment on compassionate ground. Though the respondent No. 5 held enquiry against the prayer of the petitioner but no order was passed for which the petitioner filed application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 874 of 2004 and the Tribunal was pleased to pass an order on 07.09.2004 by directing the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal to dispose of the application as a representation of the applicant by passing reasoned and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of communication. 3. However, the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal after personal hearing of the applicant rejected his prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner again filed application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal that is O.A. No. 298 of 2005 and the Tribunal also after full-fledged hearing of that application rejected the prayer of the petitioner with an observation that the applicant failed to establish a case of immediate need of assistance for appointment on compassionate ground and, therefore, his case is not tenable. That apart applicant's father having died on July, 14, 1998 and the alleged immediate need of assistance cannot be said to exist still now after a long lapse of over twelve years. 5. That apart applicant's father having died on July, 14, 1998 and the alleged immediate need of assistance cannot be said to exist still now after a long lapse of over twelve years. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner cited a decision in support of his contention passed by this Court in Sri Subimal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal in W.P.S.T. No. 90 of 2012 in which this Court after perusal and consideration of series of decisions of Apex Court came to the conclusion that the appointment on compassionate grounds is available to the heirs of an employee who died-in-harness irrespective of the family pension paid to the employee as the scheme does not in any way indicate that an applicant whose family draws family pension on the death of the employee is not entitled to compassionate appointment if the family is living in penury and accordingly this Court allowed the petition and as well as the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. In the present case the father of the petitioner died-in-harness on 14.07.1998 leaving behind him his three daughters and one son and the mother of the petitioned died in the year 1996. Undisputedly, out of three daughters two were in married. The petitioner and his sisters got the death gratuity of Rs.2,50,000/- equally after death of his father except that they got GIS amount of Rs.42,337/- equally the family pension amount of Rs.4000/- per month had been drawn by them and it was stopped on and from 25.11.2005. It is further contention of the petitioner that he has not received the GPF amount of Rs.41,250/- up till now. 7. It is this specific case of the petitioner that after the death of his father he had taken steps in respect of marriage of his sister Ujjala Das (Kumar) and medical treatment of Sumita Kumar that is his unmarried sister and as a result he has now facing acute financial crisis day to day. 8. In the present case it appears to me that the petitioner filed application for appointment on compassionate ground before the authority in the year 1998 as such it is clear that the petitioner had not caused any undue delay in submitting his claim for compassionate appointment. However, the financial condition of the family has to be considered while deciding whether to engage a person on compassionate ground. However, the financial condition of the family has to be considered while deciding whether to engage a person on compassionate ground. In the present case it is quite clear from the speaking order of the Director of Health Service, Government of West Bengal that the father of the petitioner died-in-harness in 1998 before four years five month and seventeen days of the actual date of his superannuation and he died leaving behind his one married daughter two unmarried daughters and one unmarried son that is the petitioner. The family members of the deceased received Rs.2,50,000 as death gratuity, Rs.42,347/- GIS besides the deceased family was entitled to receive family pension upto 2005. It is this specific case of the petitioner and not denied by the authority that after the demise of his father the petitioner spent for the marriage of one of his sisters and also for the treatment of his unmarried sister. It is not even mentioned in the said order of the Director of Health Service which was passed after due enquiry that whether the petitioner has their own residential house or any landed property or any other means of livelihood. 9. In the circumstances we find that the family is in financial distress and certainly cannot be considered to be well to do. According to us the respondents have not acted justly and in accordance with law while rejecting the petitioner's claim. 10. It is true compassionate appointment are not a source of recruitment in the normal course. Such appointment which made by way of concession and the appointment on compassionate grounds is available to the heirs of an employee who died-in-harness irrespective of the family pension paid to the employee. 11. In the result the petition is allowed and the order that the Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The petitioner shall be appointed on compassionate grounds if he fulfils all the eligibility criteria like educational qualification etc. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities. Nishita Mhatre, J. I agree.