Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 743 (CAL)

Tapasi Pal v. State of West Bengal

2017-09-04

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. Since none appears on behalf of the State respondents Mr. Majumder, the learned Government Pleader appears for the State respondents. 4. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the Border Wing Home Guards, Civil Defence. He died in-harness in 2003. In 2012 the present petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The petitioner relies on the notification issued by the Government of West Bengal on December 3, 2013, which provides for making compassionate appointment for the dependent family member of a Government employee. 6. Mr. Majumder, the learned Government Pleader, has rightly drawn my attention that the petitioner cannot really take advantage of the scheme for two reasons. First nine years after the death of the petitioner's father the scheme was introduced and secondly such application, in terms of the said scheme has to be made within six months from the date of death of the predecessor-in-interest. 7. I find sufficient substance in the submission made by the State respondents. However, there is yet another ground on which the present scheme cannot be applied to the petitioner, as she had not attained majority within six months after the death of her father. 8. Irrespective of any scheme being introduced by the State respondents in the year 2013, the undeniable fact remains that about nine years after the death of her father the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The law on the point is very well settled that compassionate appointment is to be regarded as outside the main course of recruitment and successive judicial decisions have frowned upon the method of appointing an heir of a deceased employee on compassionate ground. The employer, in such a case, is deprived of getting the best meritorious candidate for the post lying vacant. 9. In spite of it various employers have retained the scheme and follow the practice only to help a family tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the sudden death of the sole bread-earner. If that be the philosophy behind the continuance of appointment on compassionate ground time is a very relevant factor to be taken into account. 9. In spite of it various employers have retained the scheme and follow the practice only to help a family tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the sudden death of the sole bread-earner. If that be the philosophy behind the continuance of appointment on compassionate ground time is a very relevant factor to be taken into account. The Supreme Court has held that if the purpose of compassionate appointment is the urgency involved in the matter it is invariably lost in a case where a party approaches the Court after a substantial lapse of time. In the case of State of J & K & others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2743 , the Supreme Court reiterated the view that if a family can maintain itself for a substantial length of time for ten years, in that case, the immediate urgency for providing compassionate appointment must be deemed to have been lost. In the present case 14 years have elapsed from the date of death of the petitioner's father. The only explanation sought to be given by the learned advocate for the petitioner was that when her father had died the petitioner was a minor and therefore, she had to wait till she attain her majority. The Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & Another, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718 , has positively deprecated to this practice. Unless the Rule specifically mentioned the provision for keeping the name of minor heir on live roster merely because an heir is minor is no reason for directing the Court to consider the case of such a minor when in an uncertain future he or she attain majority. The guideline laid down in that case is that Court cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations. 10. In such view of it, I find absolutely no merit in the writ petition. I decline to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.