Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a matter of right and must be in accordance with the rules and regulations. The financial condition of the family is a guiding factor for such appointment, and the purpose is to alleviate immediate financial hardship.

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his deceased mother Banalata Mukherjee. The writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition being aggrieved by the action of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North-24 Parganas, Barasat (respondent no. 3) (hereinafter referred to as “D.I. of Schools”) who has denied the appointment of the petitioner in the category of died-in-harness vide the impugned memo being no. 69/H dated February 11, 2011.

2. The mother of the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher in the Minakhan Jatindranath Balika Vidyalaya (H.S.) on January 01, 1980. The mother of the petitioner died on July 30, 2007 while she was working in the aforesaid school. The managing committee of the school vide resolution dated August 8, 2007 had decided to recommend and forward the appointment of the petitioner in the category of died-in-harness in place of his deceased mother to the D.I. of Schools.

3. The D.I. of Schools issued the impugned memo rejecting the appointment of the petitioner on the basis that the income of the family of the deceased was more than the initial gross salary of the Group – “D” staff at the material point of time. The relevant portion of the memo is reproduced hereunder:

“In connection with the subject noted above it is regretted to state that the financial criteria of the family of the deceased is computed in terms of G.O. No. 697-ES/1S/S- 18/08 dated 09-07-2009. At the material point of time income of the family of the deceased is Rs. 5599/- and initial gross salary of the Group “D” staff of State Govt. is 5326/- as on 30-07-2007 i.e. at the material point of time. As the income of the family is not less than the initial gross salary of the Group “D” staff at the material point of time the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground could not be considered in terms of the existing Govt. Order.”

4. The D.I. of Schools has based the impugned memo on a Government Order, namely G.O. No. 697-ES/1S/S- 18/08 dated July 9, 2009, containing the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2009”).

5. The Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Saha has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his arguments. He has relied on Govind Prakash Verma –v- Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 and Balbir Kaur and Anr. –v- Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493.

6. In the case of Govind Prakash Verma –v- Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. (supra) [Coram: Brijesh Kumar and Arun Kumar, JJ.] it was held that the scheme of compassionate appointment of respondent is over and above whatever is admissible to legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which they get on the death of the employee. The relevant part of the judgment is provided below:

“6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. So far as the question of gainful employment of the elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that i