Back
High Court of Calcutta
Kalyanmoy Ganguli, J.
Sanjoy Kumar Panda – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Decided On : Sep 18, 1992
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - GOVERNMENT SERVANT DYING IN HARNESS - APPOINTMENT OF DEPENDENT MEMBER OF FAMILY - CONDITIONS - GOVERNMENT ORDERS NO. 5120 (60) LW DATED OCTOBER 17, 1977 AND NO. 196 (60) EMP DATED JUNE 19, 1978 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's father, a peon in the Junior Land Reforms Office, died in 1977. Petitioner, a school student at the time, applied for compassionate appointment in 1982. Despite fulfilling eligibility criteria, his application was rejected on grounds of delay and prior appointment of another brother. Petitioner challenged the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in application was not malafide, as the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death and the family's income was meager. The court also clarified that the prior appointment of the petitioner's brother was not made on compassionate grounds but as a casual worker who was later absorbed into a permanent vacancy.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was time-barred due to the delay in making the application. 2. Whether the prior appointment of the petitioner's brother barred his entitlement to compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in making the application was not malafide, as the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death and the family's income was meager. The court found no limitation prescribed in the circulars for making the application for appointment on compassionate ground, especially considering the petitioner's circumstances. 2. The court clarified that the prior appointment of the petitioner's brother was not made on compassionate grounds but as a casual worker who was later absorbed into a permanent vacancy. Therefore, it did not bar the petitioner's entitlement to compassionate appointment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds against any existing vacancy or as soon as a vacancy arose in any of the offices of the Land and Land Revenue or Land Reforms Department. The age bar was waived in view of the petitioner's suffering due to the laches of the appropriate authority.
1. IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the death of his father dying in harness in terms of Government order No. 5120 (60) LW dated October 17, 1977 read with Government Order no. 196 (60) EMP dated June 19, 1978 on compassionate ground.
2. THE petitioner's father late Ananda Charan Panda at the material time was working as a peon in the Junior Land Reforms Office at Tamluk in the district of Midnapore and the said Ananda Charan Panda died intestate in 1977. The petitioner at the time of his father's death was a school student and passed the School Final Examination in the year 1983. The petitioner lives with his mother and one unmarried sister. The other two brothers of the petitioner are married and live separately. The Government Order No. 5120 (60)LW dated October 17, 1977 read with Government Order No. 196 (60) EMP dated June 19,1978 provided inter alia, that if a Government servant died in harness a dependent member of the family would be given employment on compassionate ground subject to fulfillment of certain conditions.
3. THE petitioner made an application before the respondent No. 4 on October 4, 1982 praying for appointment in the said Junior Land Reforms office in terms of the aforesaid Government orders on compassionate grounds.
4. THE respondent No. 4 directed the petitioner to appear before the sub Divisional Medical Officer for medical examination and for obtaining a certificate of fitness. The said certificates were obtained as also details regarding the petitioner's age and educational qualifications were submitted to the appropriate authority. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 5 recommended the petitioner's case to the Collectorate of Midnapore for being given the appointment on such compassionate ground. A copy of the said recommendation dated October 10, 1985 has been annexed to the writ petition marked with the letter 'b'. The petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground was first rejected on the ground that such application was made in the year 1982, that is five year after the death of his father and as such the application was malafide.
5. THEREAFTER the petitioner on or about November 5, 1986 made a representation to the Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue, Government of west Bengal. The respondent No. 2 directed the respondent No. 4 to make enquiries on the point mentioned therein. A copy of the letter of the respondent no. 2 to the respondent No. 4 has been annexed to the writ petition marked with the letter 'e'. The respondent No. 2 directed the respondent No. 4 to supply the information namely, whether the applicant was a minor when his father died; the composition of the family of the deceased and the income of the family from all sources.
6. THE report was furnished by the Sub divisional Land Reforms Office to the Sub Divisional Officer, Tamluk by a reply dated December 9, 1987, a copy of which has been annexted to the writ petition marked with the letter 'f'. It appears from the said information, inter alia, that the other brothers of the petitioner were living separately and the petitioner was living with his mother and the unmarried sister with a total income of Rs.310/- only from all sources. Thereafter, the petitioner not [receiving any communication from the authority concerned moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court and a learned single Judge directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. An affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 by the Deputy Magistrate and the Deputy Collectorate attached to the office of the respondent No. 4 in the instant application. The said affidavit in opposition draws the attention of this Court to tw
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
