Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 671 (CAL)

Rajib Kumar Adak v. State of West Bengal

2013-09-11

ARUN MISHRA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI

body2013
JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.11.2000 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 13936 (W) of 2000 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as his mother had died in harness. 2. It appears that the mother of the appellant, who was the Headmistress of R.N. Basu Girls High School, died in harness on 17.02.1987. The appellant made an application on 12.01.1994 for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, in 2000 he approached this Court for compassionate appointment in place and instead of his deceased mother. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed his prayer on the ground that at the time of demise of the mother of the appellant there was no provision for compassionate appointment in the said institution and that the prayer for compassionate appointment was made 7 years after her demise. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was provision for compassionate appointment applicable to the said post. He relied on office memorandum dated 1st August, 1991 in support of such contention. He also relied on (2006) 9 SCC 195 , Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar & Ors., in support of his contention that the delay in applying for compassionate appointment ought to be condoned on the score of minority of the appellant. 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. We are of the opinion that post is not a heritable property and compassionate appointment cannot be sought for after a protracted period of time. 6. In the instant case, the appellant had applied after 7 years of death of the employee for compassionate appointment. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide succor to a bereaved family on the untimely death of a bread earner. It is not in the nature of the heritable right which may be availed of on attaining majority. 7. In the cited case, the widow of the deceased employee, had applied immediately on the demise of his husband and the same was rejected on technical grounds whereupon the son of the deceased employee had applied for compassionate appointment. 8. In the instant case, no application was ever made before 1994 although the employee died in 1987. That apart, the writ petition has been filed in 2000. The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the decision cited on behalf of the appellant. 8. In the instant case, no application was ever made before 1994 although the employee died in 1987. That apart, the writ petition has been filed in 2000. The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the decision cited on behalf of the appellant. 9. For these reasons, we are not inclined in interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal and the connected applications are accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.