Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
Papiya Majumdar – Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
W.P. No. 9955 (W) of 2015
Decided on : 15-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Dey, Mr. Anupam Das, Mr. Rituparna Sengupta
For the State : Mr. Joytosh Banerjee, Mr. Pinaki Dhole
The court held that the authorities correctly applied the relevant government order in determining the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment and that the petitioner's family income exceeded the threshold set by the order. The court also found that the petitioner had delayed in filing her writ application, which was filed five years after the rejection of her application by the authorities.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - EXTREME FINANCIAL HARDSHIP - CALCULATION OF FAMILY INCOME - DELAY IN FILING WRIT APPLICATION - REJECTION OF APPLICATION - VALIDITY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the widow of an approved Assistant Teacher who died in harness, sought compassionate appointment under the died-in-harness category. The authorities rejected her application based on the ground that her family's income exceeded the gross emoluments of a Group-D employee, as per the relevant government order. The petitioner challenged the rejection, arguing that the authorities should have considered her application under a different notification that was in effect at the time of her husband's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the authorities correctly applied the relevant government order in determining the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment. The court noted that the petitioner's family income, including her family pension, exceeded the threshold set by the order. The court also found that the petitioner had delayed in filing her writ application, which was filed five years after the rejection of her application by the authorities.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities correctly applied the relevant government order in determining the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment. 2. Whether the petitioner's family income exceeded the threshold set by the government order. 3. Whether the petitioner had delayed in filing her writ application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the authorities correctly applied the relevant government order in determining the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment. The court noted that the petitioner's family income, including her family pension, exceeded the threshold set by the order. 2. The court also found that the petitioner had delayed in filing her writ application, which was filed five years after the rejection of her application by the authorities. The court held that the delay was prejudicial to the authorities and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ application.
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
1. The petitioner, a widow of the deceased Bhabani Prasad Majumdar who was an approved Assistant Teacher. On 27.11.2001 the respondent no. 3 approved the appointment of the deceased husband of petitioner as a Headmaster in Domohani Jr. High School who discharged his duties with responsibilities, but husband died in harness on 21.4.2007.
2. The deceased husband was sole earning member of the family and due to the sudden death of the husband of the petitioner, the family of the petitioner has been facing tremendous financial hardship.
3. The petitioner passed the Madhyamik Examination in the year 1988 and Higher Secondary Examination in the year of 1991.
4. The Vice-Chairman of the Jalpaiguri Municipality issued two letters dated 03.6.2007 and 12.10.2007 in favour of the petitioner certifying the petitioner as the legal heirs of her deceased husband and also certified that the petitioner’s family have no income from any other sources, unable to maintain her two children due to lack of financial strength.
5. Petitioner made a representation dated 05.6.2007 before the respondent no. 4 requesting him to disburse her deceased husband’s arrear salary, provident fund amount, pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner and to grant the compassionate appointment under died in harness category in favour of the petitioner and she made an application dated 13.10.2007 before the respondent authorities for granting compassionate appointment under died in harness category in her favour but the respondent authorities did not take any proper steps.
6. The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance disbursed the provident fund and gratuity amount in favour of the petitioner under the death cum retirement benefit scheme.
7. The respondent no. 3 communicated one letter, being memo no. 19/9/1(2) dated 18.02.2008, to the respondent no. 2 forwarding the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in Domohani Jr. High School under the died in harness category.
8. Thereafter the respondent no. 3 served one letter, being memo no. 220(50) dated 15.02.2010, to the respondent no. 5 as well as the petitioner directing her to resubmit the relevant papers for considering the proposal of compassionate appointment and the petitioner resubmitted all the papers but the respondent no. 3 by a memo no. 1447 dated 13.10.2010 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under the died in harness category in terms of G. O. No. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated 9th July, 2009 as the ‘Income’ of her family exceeded the gross emoluments of Group-D employee at the material point of time. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities should have considered the compassionate appointment of petitioner in terms of the notification no. 1594 SE (S) dated 26th December, 2005 as the husband of the petitioner died on 21.04.2007 and the application form for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner on 13.10.2007 before the respondent authorities.
9. It is further submitted that the petitioner made one representation before the respondent no. 3 on 14.11.2014 requesting him to consider her prayer for compassionate appointment as she is not in a position to maintain her two children for their studies due to financial hardship.
10. Again, on 09.3.2015 petitioner submitted another representation before the respondent no. 3 requesting the authority to consider the proposal for compassionate appointment under the died-in-harness category to the petitioner or her son who attained the age of majority. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 by memo no. 513 dated 25th March, 2015 issued to the petitioner informed, prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was already rejected in the light of G. O. No. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated 9th July, 2009 as the ‘Income’ of her family exceeded the gross emoluments of Group-D employee at the material point of time. It is submitted that since
