Pensionery benefits of the dependants of a deceased employee cannot be taken into consideration for rejecting the claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

Let the affidavit of service be kept on record.

2. This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent No.2 under his memo No. 439/1 (3) /LS/IC-LS-437/11 dated May 31, 2013. By virtue of the impugned order, the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground due to sudden death of his father was rejected. The father of the petitioner died in harness on December 1, 2008 while he was working for gain as an assistant teacher of Maharampur Mittal Vidyamandir (H.S.), District Hooghly.

3. Initially, the above prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2 under his memo No. 187/SE dated February 23, 2011 considering the case of the petitioner on the basis of the guideline under memo No. 697-ES/S dated July 9, 2009. The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing No. W.P. 12613(W) of 2011 and the same was disposed of on March 20, 2012 and the operative portion of the above decision is quoted below :

"Law is now been well settled to the extent that right to be, considered for appointment on compassionate ground matures on the date of death of the deceased employee. As such, this Court is of the view that the concerned authority was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application for her appointment in died in harness category by applying the provision contained in the Government Memorandum dated 9th July, 2009 which was not even in existence as on the date when the petitioner's right to be considered for such appointment in died in harness category matured.

As such, the impugned order is an illegal order which cannot be retained on record.

Mr. Goswami, learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents however, submits that since the petitioner was minor at the time when her father died, the petitioner could not have been appointed in the died in harness category. Of course, the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) did not reject the petitioner's said application on the ground of minority of the petitioner at the relevant time.

Be that as it may, it appears from the record that though the petitioner was minor at the time when she submitted her application for appointment on compassionate ground but she attained the age of majority on the date when her application was taken up for consideration by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE). As such, the petitioner's minority as on the date of submission of her application cannot stand in the way of offering an appointment to her on compassionate ground, if she is otherwise found to be entitled to be appointed in the died in harness category on the basis of the rules and/or the government order which were prevalent as on the date of death of the petitioner's father.

Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside.

The concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) is directed to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for appointment on compassionate ground afresh in the light of the observation made hereinabove. Such consideration should be made within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Needless to mention here that a reasonable opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner before taking the ultimate decision in this regard.

The concerned authority is also required to pass a reasoned order in support of his conclusion and the decision to be taken by the concerned authority in this regard, should be communicated to the petitioner within two wee-fcs thereafter.

The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.

Let affidavit-of-service which is filed in Court today be kept with record.

Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner immediately.

(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J)

4. In compliance of the above order, the respondent No.2 considered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order. For proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, the relevant portion of the impugne