Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
Samim Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondents
M.A.T. 1033 of 2014 with CAN 5986 of 2014
Decided On : 13-07-2015
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - WEST BENGAL PRIMARY TEACHERS RECRUITMENT RULES, 2001 - RULE 14 - SECTION 12 - TERMINAL BENEFITS - PENSION - FINANCIAL DISTRESS - SOCIALISTIC PATTERN OF SOCIETY - BALBIR KAUR & ANOTHER V. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. & OTHERS - MUMTAZ YUNUS MULANI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS - UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER V. SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANOTHER - The Court set aside the order of the Single Judge rejecting the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment and directed the respondent authorities to take a fresh decision without considering the terminal benefits and pension disbursed to the family members of the deceased employee. The Court held that the appellant's family was financially distressed and that the claim for compassionate appointment should not be rejected solely on the ground of the disbursement of terminal benefits and pension.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's mother, the sole earning member of the family, died in harness in 2004. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment but was rejected by the authorities on the grounds that the family's income was higher than the salary of a Group-D employee and that the financial hardship of the family was not accepted based on the income certificate issued by the panchayat samity. The appellant challenged the rejection orders in two writ petitions, which were dismissed by the Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order of the Single Judge was erroneous as it failed to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others, which held that the claim for compassionate appointment should not be rejected solely on the ground of the disbursement of terminal benefits and pension. The Court also held that the appellant's family was financially distressed and that the authorities should have considered the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment on that basis.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's family was financially distressed? 2. Whether the authorities were justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of the disbursement of terminal benefits and pension?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellant's family was financially distressed, considering the fact that the appellant's mother was the sole earning member of the family and that her death had left the family without any source of income. 2. The Court held that the authorities were not justified in rejecting the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of the disbursement of terminal benefits and pension, as the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others had held that such a ground was not a valid reason for rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the respondent authorities to take a fresh decision on the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment without considering the terminal benefits and pension disbursed to the family members of the deceased employee.
Re: Application for Stay (CAN 5986/2014).
This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2013 whereby a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein on merits upon rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment.
2. From the records it appears that the mother of the appellant died in harness on 5th January, 2004 leaving behind her aged husband, one daughter and two sons including the appellant herein. There is no dispute that the mother of the appellant was sole earning member of the family and the entire family was completely dependent on the income of the deceased teacher, namely, the mother of the appellant herein. Immediately after the death of the teacher concerned, namely, the mother of the appellant herein, a representation was submitted on 3rd March, 2004 by the appellant to the Chairman, District Primary School Council, North 24 Parganas claiming employment on compassionate ground.
3. The said application was thereafter processed by the concerned authority and after a lapse of almost three years, i.e. on 1st August, 2007 the Chairman, District Primary School Council, North 24 Parganas asked the appellant/petitioner to submit family particulars and the same was duly supplied by the said appellant. The appellant/petitioner herein submitted one income certificate issued by the local panchayat pradhan wherein it has been mentioned that the total income of the family of the appellant/petitioner from all sources was Rs. 1,08,000/- per annum. The Sub- Inspector of Schools, Swarupnagar Circle, North 24 Parganas by the written communication dated 26th August, 2010 informed the appellant/petitioner about the rejection of his prayer for appointment on compassionate ground by the Director of School Education concerned. Challenging the said decision a writ petition was filed earlier before this Court by the appellant/petitioner herein and a learned Judge of this Court ultimately quashed the earlier decision of the Director of School Education and remand the matter to the said Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal for taking a de novo decision in accordance with Rules and guidelines governing the appointment on compassionate ground under died in harness category within a prescribed time limit. Ultimately, the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal decided the matter afresh and communicated the same to the appellant/petitioner by the memo dated 16th November, 2011 rejecting the claim of the appellant/petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, inter alia, on two grounds, firstly, the income of the family is higher than the salary of Group-D employee, which is not permissible as per Rule 14 of the West Bengal Primary Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 and secondly, the financial hardship of the family was not accepted on the basis of the income certificate issued by the Sabhapati of panchayat samity.
4. Another writ petition was filed by the appellant/petitioner herein challenging the aforesaid decision of the Director of School Education in W.P. 3998 (W) of 2012 and the said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 22nd March, 2012 whereby the said learned Judge directed the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal to take a decision on the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the appellant/petitioner herein on the basis of Rule 14 as it existed in the year 2004 and for such purpose an enquiry was also directed to be conducted in accordance with law.
5. The Commissioner of School Education, Government of West Bengal by the reasoned order dated 2nd November, 2012 again rejected the prayer of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment upon holding that the family of the appellant/petitioner cannot be said to be financially distressed upon considering the financial condition of the said family. The r
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
