Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 398 (CAL)

Chowdhury Mafuza Sultana v. State of West Bengal

2015-05-05

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012 passed in Case No. OA 724 of 2011 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal whereby the said learned Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the family of the deceased employee received terminal benefits of more than seven lakhs and therefore, the said family of the deceased was not in acute financial distress. 2. Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned Advocate representing the petitioner however, submits that payment of terminal benefits cannot be a relevant consideration for assessing the financial condition of a family of the deceased employee. Mr. Bari relies on a decision of 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 . The learned Tribunal, however, relied on several other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to reject the claim of the petitioner. 3. It is not in dispute that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. (supra) is still valid and operative since the same has not yet been overruled by any subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Addl. Government Pleader submits that the petitioner, being a married daughter, is not entitled to claim employment on compassionate ground. Mr. Bari, learned Counsel of the petitioner submits that the claim of the said petitioner for employment on compassionate ground was not rejected by the competent authority on the aforesaid ground that the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee. Mr. Mukherjee however, submits that the petitioner herein was married during the lifetime of her father and therefore, the said petitioner cannot claim herself dependant on the earnings of the father who died-in-harness. 5. The learned Tribunal however, held that there may be circumstances, where State government should offer appointment to a married daughter and the State government did not challenge the aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal before this Court. Furthermore, a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) specifically considered the aforesaid issue regarding entitlement of a married daughter to claim appointment on compassionate ground in the case of Smt. Sima Mondal (Das) vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Furthermore, a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) specifically considered the aforesaid issue regarding entitlement of a married daughter to claim appointment on compassionate ground in the case of Smt. Sima Mondal (Das) vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (A.S.T. 222 of 2014 with A.S.T.A. 166 of 2014). 6. The relevant extract from an unreported decision of this Court is set out hereunder :- “The appellant-petitioner herein even after marriage was staying with her father under compelling circumstances as it has been submitted on behalf of the said appellant-petitioner that her husband is still unemployed and therefore, unable to maintain the appellant-petitioner herein. After the sudden demise of the father, the appellant-petitioner prayed before the authorities for providing employment on compassionate ground in order to enable the said appellant-petitioner to maintain the family of the deceased employee which consists of widow mother apart from the said appellant-petitioner. **** **** **** **** **** **** There is no dispute that the married son can be considered for employment on compassionate ground on the sudden death of the only bread earner of the family. **** **** **** **** **** **** In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the employer cannot and should not discriminate the appellant-petitioner herein on the ground of gender alone. A married daughter cannot be discriminated in the matter of providing employment on compassionate ground if it is established that the said married daughter was solely dependent on the deceased father even after the marriage.” 7. In the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held:- “8. ……..The socialistic pattern of society as envisaged in the Constitution has to be attributed its full meaning. A person dies while taking the wife to a hospital and the cry of the lady for bare subsistence would go unheeded on a certain technicality”. “13. …The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by somelump-sum amount being made available to the family – this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. “13. …The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by somelump-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 breadearner 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 breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.” 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. (supra), we are of the opinion that the aforesaid claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could not be rejected only on the ground of disbursement of terminal benefits and pension of the family members of the deceased employee. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has committed an error by not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr.(supra). 9. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal on 8th February, 2012 passed in Case No. O.A. 724 of 2011 and direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without taking note of the disbursement of terminal benefits and/or pension to the family members of the deceased employee. 10. Since a considerable time has already passed, we direct the respondent authorities specially, the respondent no. 2 herein to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without any further delay and positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order without taking note of the disbursement of terminal benefits and/or payment of regular pension to the family members of the deceased employee. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of this writ petition without awarding any cost.