Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1028 (CAL)

Rumana Pervin v. State of West Bengal

2016-12-16

C.S.KARNAN

body2016
C. S. Karnan, J.: The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The petitioner has submitted that her father namely Md. Yasin Ali was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1.9.1972 and all of a sudden her father died on 16.9.2007 long before the date of retirement and the father of the petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner as an unmarried daughter and four other daughters and their mother a widow. 2. The petitioner states that four daughters out of five got married during the life time of the father of the petitioner and for the purpose of the said marriages the deceased father of the petitioner took a loan from the close friends and relatives and at present the petitioner and her mother are forced to pay the said loan amount and as a result the petitioner including her mother have been suffering seriously. 3. The petitioner states that immediately after the death of the father of the petitioner and finding no other alternative way the mother of the petitioner filed an application for enlistment of her name against the Death in harness, which was duly forwarded on 17.04.2008 by the school authority to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned. 4. The petitioner further states that on 29.03.2008 four daughters out of five affirmed an affidavit stating inter alia that they have no objection of the mother if the petitioner is provided with an appointment letter to any post by the competent authority. 5. The petitioner states that the one married sister of the petitioner namely Bilkis Nahar filed a writ petition praying for appointment on the same ground by stating some false and frivolous story being W.P. No.11360 (W) of 2009 and the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas on 7.09.2009. 6. The petitioner states that after the death of the petitioner’s father, the mother of the petitioner made a representation before the concerned authority praying for a job on the ground of died-in-harness category on 29.6.2009. It is stated in the said representation that if service is not provided to the mother then the petition should be considered. 7. The petitioner states that Teacher-in-Charge of Boldepota Aminia Senior Madrasah forwarded the necessary papers of the petitioner for appointment in died-in-harness ground on 17.7.2009 to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned. 8. It is stated in the said representation that if service is not provided to the mother then the petition should be considered. 7. The petitioner states that Teacher-in-Charge of Boldepota Aminia Senior Madrasah forwarded the necessary papers of the petitioner for appointment in died-in-harness ground on 17.7.2009 to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned. 8. The petitioner states and submits that inspite of getting all the necessary papers for appointment on compassionate ground of the mother of the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned in sitting tight over the matter and did not take any steps for appointment to the mother of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 9. The petitioner states that on 27.10.2009 the District Inspector of Schools (SE) forwarded the name of the mother of the petitioner to the Director of Madrasah Education for enlistment of the mother’s name in death-in-harness register for appointment on compassionate ground. 10. The petitioner states that in 2011 the petitioner passed Alim Examination and thereafter also passing Fazil Examination in 2013 and her date of birth is 01.01.1996. 11. The petitioner states that the mother of the petitioner moved a writ petition being W.P. No.17068 (W) of 2009 praying for appointment letter on compassionate ground which was disposed of on 25.11.2009 by the Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta by directing the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned to consider the representation made by the petitioner for appointment of her youngest daughter on compassionate ground strictly in accordance with the rules as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 12. The petitioner states that the petitioner made a representation on 24.02.2014 to the District Inspector of Schools (SE) concerned by requesting him to take necessary steps for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the petitioner as per the solemn order dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No.17068 (W) of 2009 and the said representation was accepted but no receipt was given. 13. 13. The petitioner states that in the month of May 2014 the petitioner received a copy of the decision dated 19.12.2013 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) wherein it is decided that on the date of application of the deceased which did not possess the requisite qualification as she had not completed the age of Eighteen years on the date of her application so she is not found suitable for appointment on compassionate ground. 14. The petitioner states that when the mother of the petitioner submitted representation claiming for appointment on compassionate ground, she was within the age limit but subsequently she became on average and on that ground her name was not forwarded for appointment on compassionate ground and consequently the District Inspector of Schools took decision that the petitioner has not completed the age of 18 years on the date of application. 15. The petitioner submits that the order dated 19.12.2013 is bad, illegal unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 16. This Court granted sufficient time to the respondents for filing affidavit-in-opposition, the same was not filed even after a lapse of 2 years. Under these circumstances this Court is constrained to pass a final order after perusing the annexed documents. 17. The highly competent counsel Mr. N.C. Mandal appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father Mr. Md. Yasin Ali, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 1.9.1972 and as he was working continuously with the respondents Education Institution, during the period of his service, on 16.9.2007 he expired due to illness. The petitioner is an unmarried daughter besides other four daughters and a widowed mother who are the legal hires of the deceased father. Four daughters were married off. The widowed mother of the petitioner and other 4 married sisters are not eligible to receive appointments on compassionate ground except the petitioner. The father of the petitioner had borrowed money at a high rate of interest in order to celebrating the marriages of the 4 sisters of the petitioner. As a result the family of the petitioner is facing a severe financial crises. 18. The highly competent counsel further submits that the 4 sisters of the petitioner and the mother of the petitioner had given no objection by way of filing an affidavit. As a result the family of the petitioner is facing a severe financial crises. 18. The highly competent counsel further submits that the 4 sisters of the petitioner and the mother of the petitioner had given no objection by way of filing an affidavit. The widowed mother of the petitioner made a representation to the respondents and requested them to give an appointment to the petitioner herein. Following the said representation the petitioner had submitted relevant testimonials including the educational qualifications. After receipt of the said documents, the District Inspector of Schools forwarded the application to the Director of Madrasa Education for the release of the petitioner’s mother’s name, however, the petitioner has obtained the necessary educational qualification and also obtained the attained being a major subsequently. 19. Thereafter the appointment proceedings have not been pursued, hence the mother of the petitioner had moved a writ petition before this Court, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the District Inspector of Schools to consider the said representation, the same was rejected without assigning any valid reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation on 24.2.2014 to the District Inspector of Schools, the same was negativated even after a specific direction given by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to give suitable direction to the respondents since the petitioner has obtained the age of a major besides possessing required educational qualifications, besides the family of the petitioner is living below the poverty line besides belonging to a minority by religion. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the father of the petitioner had expired on 16.9.2007, during the relevant period the petitioner was minor. However the widow of the deceased had sought an appointment on the compassionate ground, the same was rejected on the grounds that she is not the eligible for any suitable post. As per the Government order, the petitioner has to apply within 2 years but the petitioner had submitted an application after the lapse of 8 years, further the family of the petitioner are in grave financial need and suffering, therefore, the respondent rejected the petitioner’s representation on valid grounds. Hence the very competent counsel prays to dismiss the above writ petition. 21. Hence the very competent counsel prays to dismiss the above writ petition. 21. From the above discussions the views of the Court are as follows:- (1) The father of the petitioner had rendered long satisfactory service with the respondent department and he expired on 16.9.2007. At the time of his death the petitioner’s age was 11 years, as such she is not eligible to receive an appointment under compassionate ground. However, she had obtained the required qualification in the year 2013 and also attained the age of a major, therefore, Government Order issued by the Government is not applicable in the instant case since within two years from the date of the death of the employee, the petitioner is not eligible. After the eligibility only Government Order shall operate and only then the Government Order become appropriate. (2) The petitioner is the eligible candidate to the family members of the deceased who also had given consent for providing an appointment to the petitioner. 22. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the annexed documents, the views of this Court as mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to receive a suitable job in compassionate grounds from the respondents department. Hence, the Court directs the respondents specially the 4th respondent herein to furnish the vacant position in your concerned department on or before 4.1.2017 without fail. This Court directs the Registry to post the matter on 4.1.2017 under the Caption of “To Be Mentioned”.