Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 744 (CAL)

Subhrajyoti Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2025-10-28

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. An order dated April 24, 2018, of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Murshidabad [herein after referred to as the “DI”] is under challenge in the instant writ petition. The petitioner has paid for the relief that by setting aside the said impugned order necessary directions be made to appoint him on compassionate ground. 2. The petitioner’s father was appointed as an assistant teacher on August 7, 1989 and was appointed as the headmaster of the school on September 16, 2011. He has breathed his last on January 21, 2013, during the tenure of his service. The said father of the petitioner was survived by his widow, a married daughter and the son that is the present petitioner. The mother of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on April 27, 2013. She, by another representation and prayer dated April 7, 2015, had reiterated her prayer for grant of compassionate appointment in a Group-C post. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent authorities did not ultimately send any recommendation for compassionate appointment due to the reason of alleged non- fulfillment of conditions in Notification No. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated July 9, 2009 [hereinafter referred to as “No.697”]. 3. The petitioner’s prayer for grant of compassionate appointment was first rejected by the respondent No. 3, vide order dated May 31, 2016. Challenging the same order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court being. W.P.No. 3361 (w) of 2017. In the said writ petition the court had set aside the order of the respondent as impugned there in and directed the respondent to consider the entire matter afresh, by dint of its order dated December 19, 2017. 4. The resultant order is that dated April 24, 2018, which is impugned in the present petition. Mr. Saibal Acharyya learned advocate who appears for the writ petitioner has stated that the impugned order is manifestation of erroneous exercise of power by the said respondent/DI. That the same is baseless, irrational and arbitrary in nature. Mr. Acharyya has submitted that the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 vide notification No.697, has no manner of application in case of the present writ petitioner. That the same is baseless, irrational and arbitrary in nature. Mr. Acharyya has submitted that the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 vide notification No.697, has no manner of application in case of the present writ petitioner. It has been submitted further that, for the purpose of compassionate appointment, taking into account the amount of family pension received by the successor of the said deceased school teacher/headmaster, is only an unsustainable proposition as per the law settled. It has been submitted further that on the contrary, the petitioner would have been entitled for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of Schedule-V of the said Rules of 2009 [No.697]. It has been submitted further that the amount of family pension received by the successor of a deceased school teacher is not an absolute bar, for him/her in case of appointment on compassionate ground. It is submitted that the petitioner is otherwise qualified to be appointed as a Group-C employee and in the event of death of his predecessor/father during the tenure of his service, the writ petitioner would be entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the existing rules, regulations and the law. He has challenged the impugned order addressing the same as unfair and illegal. 5. To butress his argument, Mr. Acharyya has specifically relied on the “Explanation”, provided in SCHEDULE V of the Rules of 2009 [No.697], and said that as per the statutory provision as above, the family pension of the family of the deceased is not an absolute debarment for his keen to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In this regard he has also relied on the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in (i) Tapan Kumar Barman vs State of West Bengal and Others, reported at 2009 (1) CHN pg.23; and (ii) Swati Chatterjee vs State of West Bengal & Others, reported at 2010 (1) CLJ (Cal) pg.350. 6. This court in the said judgment Tapan Kumar Barman (supra) has categorically held that the amounts of provident fund and gratuity are the amounts earned and assured to the deceased person. Likewise, the amount of family pension is a kind of deferred payment and earned by the deceased. 6. This court in the said judgment Tapan Kumar Barman (supra) has categorically held that the amounts of provident fund and gratuity are the amounts earned and assured to the deceased person. Likewise, the amount of family pension is a kind of deferred payment and earned by the deceased. The court has held further that the family pension once granted in the event of death of a person during the tenure of his employment, to his successor, would stop with the death of the grantee. The court held that payment of terminal benefits could not be equated with the scheme of compassionate appointment and that receipt of provident fund/gratuity/family pension, shall not stand in the way for granting compassionate appointment to the legal heir of the deceased person, in case all the necessary preconditions are fulfilled. Similarly, in Swati Chatterjee’s case (supra) , the court has held that family pension was not sufficient to meet the needs of the family in the event of death of the government servant member thereof and for this reason, held the legal heir of the deceased to be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. 7. According to the respondent authority, which has been represented by Mr. Rajarshi Basu, learned advocate, the statute governing the substantive right and procedure in case of an appointment on compassionate ground is the said Rules of 2009 [vide notification no.697]. It is submitted that paragraph 1 of Schedule V of the said Rules has prescribed a detailed procedure for determination of the “financial hardship” of the family of the deceased, in order to assess eligibility of a member of the family and legal heir of the deceased person, for being appointed on compassionate ground. That, what the respondent/DI has done in the impugned order dated April 24, 2018, is only in compliance with the said provision of the Rules. It is submitted that this Court, in its order dated December 19, 2017, has specifically directed the said respondent to consider claim of the writ petitioner in terms of expression of “financial hardship”, as enumerated under paragraph 1 of Schedule V of the said Rules of 2009. Hence, according to the respondent/DI, the impugned order suffers with no arbitrariness or illegality as alleged. 8. Hence, according to the respondent/DI, the impugned order suffers with no arbitrariness or illegality as alleged. 8. The wife of the deceased headmaster that is the father of the present petitioner made an application seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground within the stipulated time. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner otherwise is competent and eligible for being appointed as prayed for. The only hindrance is that, the family income of the petitioner, said to have been calculated in terms of SCHEDULE V of Rules of 2009, is greater than the initial gross salary of a Group-D staff of the State Government. Whereas according to the respondent the total family income of the person aspiring compassionate appointment at the material point of time should have been less than the initial gross salary of a Group-D staff. According to the respondent the present CAs is only otherwise. 9. The Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., reported at (2000) vol.6 SCC pg.493 has held that the family benefit scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment. The Rules of 2009 [vide notification No.697] came for consideration of this court in Jayita Kole vs State of West Bengal and Others reported at 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 7662 . In the same the court with reference to an earlier decision of this court in State of West Bengal vs. Bina Debnath reported at 2009(2) CLJ pg. 512 , has held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to families in genuine financial distress, not to consider statutory benefits like family pension as income. In Balbir Kaur’s case (supra) , the Supreme Court has held that the introduction of schemes like Family Benefit Scheme or Family Pension Scheme cannot be used as a ground to deny compassionate appointment, especially when such schemes are not equated with the benefits of compassionate appointment. 10. The law is now well settled that family pension should not be taken into account when assessing the financial condition of the family for compassionate appointment. In Jayita Koley’s case (supra) the court has held that family pension should not be considered in determining the financial condition of the family for compassionate appointment. 10. The law is now well settled that family pension should not be taken into account when assessing the financial condition of the family for compassionate appointment. In Jayita Koley’s case (supra) the court has held that family pension should not be considered in determining the financial condition of the family for compassionate appointment. This aligns with the broader legal principle settled that family pension is a statutory benefit meant to support the family, not an income source that reflects the actual financial hardship of the family. The introduction of the Family Benefit Scheme or Family Pension Scheme is recognized as a benefit that cannot be equated with or used as a basis to deny compassionate appointment as noted in Balbir Kaur ’ case (supra) . The courts emphasize that denying compassionate appointment solely on the basis of statutory benefits like family pension would undermine the purpose of such schemes and the principles of social justice. The law recognizes that "the concept of social justice is the yardstick to the justice administration system" [in Balbir Kaur (supra) ]. Therefore, statutory benefits such as family pension are not to be considered as income that disqualifies a family from compassionate appointment. The Court may also mention the two judgments referred to on behalf of the petitioner in this regard, as discussed above. 11. The legal considerations clearly indicate that family pension, as a statutory benefit, should not be included in the financial assessment for compassionate appointment under West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non- Teaching Staff) Rules 2009. The primary focus remains on the actual financial hardship of the family, excluding statutory benefits like family pension from such calculations. The benefits of family pension and that of the compassionate appointment remain distinct when beneficiary of compassionate appointment are specified and family pension is allowable to the dependent in terms of the pension rules. 12. The legal principles as settled well and discussed above, would indicate that upon fulfillment of the basic requirements for being appointed on compassionate ground, typically that of indigenous financial condition due to death of the bread owner of the family and requirement for providing an immediate source of sustenance for the family, the amount or part thereof of the family pension received is only an extraneous condition, so far as grant of appointment on compassionate grounds is concerned. 13. 13. In view of all as discussed above, the court finds that in the impugned order dated April 24, 2018, the respondent/DI, has not taken into consideration the law as settled. Thus his decision is contrary to what the courts have decided with regard to appointment on compassionate ground. This has led the impugned order as above to be not in compliance with the law and thus illegal and liable to be set aside. 14. As a consequence, the instant writ petition is allowed, with the following directions : i) The impugned order dated April 24, 2018 is contrary to the law and here by set aside; ii) The writ petitioner is entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground, in the event of death of his father/headmaster during the tenure of his service; iii) The DI/respondent No.3 is directed to issue necessary order in this regard, appointing the writ petitioner in a post in accordance with law on compassionate grounds and allow and disburse to him all the consequential benefits as applicable; iv) The exercise as directed above should be concluded by the DI/respondent No.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of copy of this judgment. 15. The writ petition No. WPA 23428 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of. 16. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.