Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 832 (CAL)

Chandan Hazra v. State of West Bengal

2017-11-01

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, SHEKHAR B.SARAF

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ application is directed against a judgment dated October 3, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1518 of 2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground after holding the order of rejection of his prayer by the respondent authority. 2. On perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the father of the petitioner, namely Sadhan Hazra breathed his last on February 22, 2004 after rendering his service under the respondent authorities for 37 years 09 months and 22 days at the age of 57 years 23 days. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on December 17, 2004. The same was rejected by an order dated June 17, 2008 passed by the Joint Director of Health Services, (Personnel), West Bengal taking into consideration the family pension which was Rs. 2,085/- per month as also the death benefit amount received by the family of the aforesaid deceased person which was Rs. 3,32,698/- According to the respondent authority, the family of the aforesaid deceased person was not in need of immediate financial assistance. 3. The above order was not challenged by the petitioner before a forum of law. Instead, he submitted further representation before the authority which was considered and rejected by the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal by an order dated November 13, 2009 with the observations that dependent of the deceased employee had received death benefit amounting to Rs. 2,76,000/- (excluding GPF) and apart from receiving monthly family pension of Rs. 4,600/- (approx) at that material point of time. 4. The petitioner filed the above original application before the learned Tribunal bearing O.A. No. 1518 of 2010. The same was rejected by virtue of the impugned order. 5. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that Notification No. 301-EMP/10/2000 dated August 21, 2002 was in vogue at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. According to the above notification, the only criterion for appointment on compassionate ground was that the family of the deceased employee was in immediate need of financial assistance. 5. On perusal of the materials on record, we find that Notification No. 301-EMP/10/2000 dated August 21, 2002 was in vogue at the time of death of the father of the petitioner. According to the above notification, the only criterion for appointment on compassionate ground was that the family of the deceased employee was in immediate need of financial assistance. We do not find any error in the order dated June 17, 2008, i.e. the first order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner, in the light of the reason assigned for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner apart from the fact, which is not in dispute, that the order has never been challenged by the petitioner before any forum of law and the same stands till date. 6. We are of the further view that the above facts and circumstances leads us to arrive at a conclusion that the order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner passed by the respondent authority on November 13, 2009 looses its legal importance though the respondent authority did not refer to its earlier order of rejection dated June 17, 2008 in the same. However, on consideration of the aforesaid second order of rejection, we find that the learned Tribunal rejected the original application of the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that 90% of the last pay drawn by the father of the petitioner was Rs. 5,555/- which was lesser than the amount monthly receivable by his family members by way of family pension amounting to Rs. 4,698/- and monthly interest of Rs. 1,844/- receivable from his death benefit of Rs. 2,76,608/-. The sum total of the aforesaid amount (Rs. 6,542/-) was higher than the last pay drawn by the father of the petitioner and the same was more than the minimum salary receivable by a Group-D employee which was Rs. 6,223/- at that point of time. The above consideration was made by the learned Tribunal in the light of the guideline prescribed in Notification bearing No. 114-EMP dated August 14, 2008. 7. It will not be out of context to mention that though a submission has been made before us on the strength of a sheet of paper produced by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in course of hearing that the monthly family pension of the petitioner was Rs. 7. It will not be out of context to mention that though a submission has been made before us on the strength of a sheet of paper produced by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in course of hearing that the monthly family pension of the petitioner was Rs. 3,270/- we find that in the first order of rejection, the monthly pension received by the family of the deceased employee was Rs. 2,085/- which was lesser than the aforesaid amount. So the above submission does not help the petitioner in anyway. 8. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, this writ application does not require our interference. Therefore, this writ application stands dismissed. 9. There will be, however, no order as to costs.