Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 283
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay & Arunabha Basu, JJ.
Nazrul Islam & Anr.
vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
F.M.A. No. 79 of 2005
Decided on : April 11, 2007
Ekramul Bari, Shami-ul-Bari, Bulbul Yeasmin, K.M. Hossain, S.M. Ali for the appellants;
P.S. Deb Barman for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5;
Bhudeb Bhattacharyya, Monotosh Chakraborty for the State.
THE COURT CANNOT BE A SILENT SPECTATOR IN THE MATTER OF DENIAL OF RELIEF TO THE TREMENDOUS SUFFERINGS OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON ACCOUNT OF PREMATURE RETIREMENT DUE TO COMPLETE BLINDNESS.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - BLIND TEACHER - FAMILY ECONOMIC HARDSHIP - [WEST BENGAL PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT, 1973 SECTION 26(1)(C)] - THE COURT HELD THAT THE FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT WAS IN EXTREME ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL AS COMMUNICATION BY THE CHAIRMAN, MALDA DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL BY MEMO. DATED 10TH NOVEMBER, 2003 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
THE APPELLANT, A PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER, BECAME PERMANENTLY BLIND BEFORE RETIREMENT. HE FILED A WRIT PETITION SEEKING A DECLARATION OF PERMANENT DISABILITY AND RETIREMENT ON THAT BASIS. THE COURT ALLOWED THE PETITION AND DIRECTED THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE FAMILY WAS IN EXTREME ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND, IF SO, TO FORWARD THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT'S SON FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. THE COUNCIL FOUND THAT THE FAMILY WAS NOT IN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP AND REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE SON'S APPOINTMENT.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE COUNCIL'S DECISION WAS NOT BASED ON ANY REASONABLE BASIS AND/OR CRITERIA. THE COURT NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TO LEAVE THE JOB BEFORE ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION BEING PERMANENTLY BLIND AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME APART FROM THE ADMISSIBLE PENSIONARY BENEFITS THE FAMILY OF THE APPELLANTS MUST SUFFER TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE COUNCIL'S DECISION THAT THE FAMILY WAS NOT IN ECONOMIC HARDSHIP WAS REASONABLE. 2. WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD INTERFERE WITH THE COUNCIL'S DECISION.
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE COUNCIL'S DECISION WAS NOT REASONABLE BECAUSE IT DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT'S PERMANENT BLINDNESS, THE LACK OF ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE FACT THAT THE FAMILY'S INCOME WAS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT IT COULD NOT BE A SILENT SPECTATOR IN THE MATTER OF DENIAL OF RELIEF TO THE TREMENDOUS SUFFERINGS OF A PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ON ACCOUNT OF PREMATURE RETIREMENT DUE TO COMPLETE BLINDNESS.
Final Decision: THE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE COUNCIL'S DECISION, AND DIRECTED THE COUNCIL TO FORWARD THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT'S SON FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT. THE COURT ALSO DIRECTED THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION TO GRANT THE NECESSARY PERMISSION AND/OR APPROVAL FOR THE APPOINTMENT.
1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the writ petitioners from the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 19672(W) of 2003, whereby and whereunder the said learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
2. The appellant No.1 herein was an approved Primary Teacher of Baroghoria Primary School in the District of Malda. The said appellant No.1 became permanently disabled before attaining the age of superannuation as he lost the vision and became completely blind. Since the respondent authorities did not take appropriate steps for declaring the appellant No. 1 as permanently disabled on account of his loss of vision, a separate writ petition was filed by the said appellant No.1 before this Court on the earlier occasion which was numbered as W.P. 4782(W) of 2000. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court as hereunder :
"In those circumstances, it should be deemed that the petitioner became 100% visually invalid much prior to his attaining the age of 58 years and, accordingly the writ petition is allowed.
The respondent Council is directed to treat that the petitioner has been declared by Medical Board on 29th April, 2000 to have been permanently disabled of incapacitated for life, for he became completely blind. The Council is thus directed to allow the petitioner to retire on the ground that the petitioner has become permanently incapacitated on 29th April, 2000 forthwith. The Council is also directed to make an enquiry as quickly as possible as but not later than two months from the date of service of a copy of this order to ascertain whether the family of the petitioner is in extreme economic hardship after such retirement of the petitioner, In the event it finds that the family of the petitioner is not in extreme economic hardship, the Council shall communicate the same to the petitioner in writing within 15 days from the date of taking such decision indicating the reasons to support such decision. In the event the Council is of the view that the family of the petitioner is in extreme economic hardship then the Council shall within 15 days from the date of such decision forward the name of the son of the petitioner to the Director of School Education (P.E.) seeking permission to give appointment to him. In the event such request is made by the Council, the Director is directed to decide the said request within 15 days from the date of making such request. In the event the Director refuses to accede to such request, he shall give reasons in support thereof and communicate the same to the petitioner."
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Chairman Malda District Primary School Council ascertained the financial condition of the family of the appellant No.1 and found that the said family was not in economic hardship after the retirement of the appellant No. 1.
4. For the aforementioned reasons, the Chairman, Malda District Primary School Council refused to consider the prayer of the appellant No. 1 for providing employment to his son, namely, the appellant No.2 herein on compassionate ground and communicated the decision to the appellant No.1 by the Memo dated 10th November, 2003.
5. The relevant text of the said Memorandum dated 10th November, 2003 issued by the Chairman, Malda District Primary School Council set out hereunder :
'To: Nazrul Islam, S/o. Hafizuddin Ahmed. Vill-Panchla, P.O. Borai Dist.
Malda.
Ref.: W.P. No. 4782(W) of 2000
Nazrul Islam vs. State of W. B. & Ors.
Sub: Pursue the solemn order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Mr. Barin Ghosh.
The undersigned would like to inform him that in pursuance of the solemn order dated 25.07.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Mr. Barin Ghosh in respect of W.P. No. 4782(W) of 2000 this Council heard the matter on 13.10.2003 giving opportunities to the petitioner for placing documents about the economic
