Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
NISHITA MHATRE & TAPASH MOOKHERJEE, JJ.
Amit Kumar Roy
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others
W.P.S.T. No. 218 of 2012 (Appellate Side)
Decided on: 28-04-2014
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - FAMILY FINANCIAL CRISIS - TERMINAL BENEFITS - DELAY IN PROCESSING APPLICATION - MARRIAGE AFTER FATHER'S DEATH - G.O. NO. 7 (127) E.M.P. DATED 13.11.1999 - EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS: HELD, THE PETITIONER IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO AN EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father, Late Prabir Chandra Roy, died in harness on 13.08.2000 after rendering service for more than 38 years. The petitioner's mother applied for employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. The application was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the family was not in financial crisis. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's family was in serious financial crisis when the deceased died in harness. The court also held that the petitioner was not responsible for the long delay in processing his application. The court further held that the petitioner's marriage after his father's death did not disentitle him from compassionate appointment.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's family was in financial crisis when the deceased died in harness? 2. Whether the petitioner was responsible for the long delay in processing his application? 3. Whether the petitioner's marriage after his father's death disentitled him from compassionate appointment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's family was in serious financial crisis when the deceased died in harness because there was a sudden fall of income of the family and the total monthly income in the hands of the deceased's family was inadequate for the maintenance of four adult members. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not responsible for the long delay in processing his application because the officers of the State took long and unreasonable time to take decisions. 3. The court held that the petitioner's marriage after his father's death did not disentitle him from compassionate appointment because it is commonly known that in our society boys are sometimes compelled to marry without having any independent source of income due to pressures from the family.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground when the next vacancy arises, in accordance with the petitioner's qualifications.
Tapash Mookherjee, J.
1. The present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No. 624 of 2005.
2. The facts leading to the application, in short, are as follows:-
3. The father of the petitioner, Late Prabir Chandra Roy, was working as a Head Assistant in the office of the Block Medical Officer of Health, Reapara Rural Hospital, Nandigram-II in the District of Purba Midnapur and he died-in-harness on 13.08.2000 after rendering service for more than 38 years leaving behind his widow, two sons including the petitioner, two married daughters and one unmarried daughter. Petitioner’s mother applied for employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. An enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer concerned to ascertain the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. After enquiry, the B. D. O. submitted a report to the sub-divisional officer concerned.
4. District Magistrate, Purba Midnapur, asked the B. D. O. to take necessary decisions of his own regarding the matter in terms of the G. O. No. 7 (127) E.M.P dated 13.11.1999 of the Labour Department. But no action had been taken by the B. D. O. in the matter. Hence, the petitioner filed an Original Application being O. A. No. 767 of 2002 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.
5. The Tribunal by its order dated 04.09.2003 directed the Director of Health Services, West Bengal, the Respondent No. 2 in this application, to treat the application before the Tribunal as a representation of the petitioner and to take appropriate decision on it. The aforesaid authority did not comply with that order due to which a contempt application being C. C. P. No. 71 of 2004 had been filed by the petitioner.
6. The Director of Health Services, West Bengal, passed an order on 25.02.2005 rejecting thereby the application of the petitioner. Against such order of rejection, the petitioner again filed an Original Application No. 642 of 2005 before the Administrative Tribunal. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal, by an order dated 20.09.2010. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the petitioner filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the terminal benefits received by the petitioner’s family on the death of the petitioner’s father, added by the income from the landed property of the petitioner’s family and added further with the monthly family pension of the petitioner’s mother, were adequate for the support of the petitioner’s family and secondly, that since the petitioner’s family could survive for 10 years without any external assistance, the petitioner’s claim for immediate assistance by an employment on compassionate ground was not justified.
8. Mr. Sanyal appearing for the petitioner argued that the learned Tribunal committed gross errors by considering the entire terminal benefits received by the petitioner’s family as the fund enjoyable exclusively by the dependents of the deceased, because, the deceased left two married daughters who had also due shares in it. Mr. Sanyal, further argued that the fund received on account of G. P. F. and Leave Encashment were the deceased’s own savings and the deceased had contributed in General Insurance Scheme also. So, neither the principal amount nor the interest yielding from those funds should be considered as the terminal benefits received by the deceased’s family from the employer. He further submitted that the marriage of the petitioner after his father’s death is not a legal disqualification for any employment on compassionate ground. Mr. Sanyal added further that the delay in the processing of the petitioner’s application was not due to any cause attributable to the petitioner. The substance of th
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
