The delay in making the application for compassionate appointment and the absence of immediate financial crisis were crucial in the court's decision to dismiss the writ application.

JUDGMENT :

Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.

This is a writ application for employment under compassionate ground.

2. The petitioner has stated in the writ application that his father who was a Gram Panchayat Karmi under Nuni Gram Panchayat in the District of Burdwan died on 2nd day of March, 2000. A certificate of death to that effect has been annexed in the writ application. From annexure P-2 of the writ application it is evident that the petitioner on April 11, 2011 made an application for compassionate appointment by filling up the 'Proforma regarding employment of dependents of Govt employees dying while in service'. This application has been made after 11(Eleven) years from the date of death of the applicant's father.

3. From the educational qualification certificate annexed in the writ application it is found that the petitioner has read upto class VIII and left school on April 30, 1995 and his date of birth is 17.01.1981.

4. The petitioner has alleged that though the Proforma was forwarded by BDO to the District Panchayat and Rural Development officer on April 11, 2011 no step has been taken till date for appointing him on compassionate ground. His father expired while in service. In the meantime the papers sent by BDO was returned by the Joint Director of Panchayat for deficiency of documents with direction to re-submit the same which has been re-submitted with the necessary documents.

5. The petitioner prays for immediate appointment on compassionate ground. This prayer in the writ application has been made after 16 years from the date of death of the petitioner's father.

6. The writ application has been affirmed on July 29, 2016 and has been filed on August 2, 2016 i.e. after 5 years from the date of filing the abovementioned proforma.

7. Now, it is necessary to see what particulars have been disclosed by the petitioner in the Proforma. From Part-2 of the said proforma it is found that the deceased had four dependents. The first one is Ganesh Bauri, age 48 years, married, living separately. The second one is Arun Bauri, age 42 years, married. The third one is Rabin Bauri, age 36 years, married. The fourth one is the petitioner, Rana Bauri, age 30 years, unmarried. Such ages of the dependants are of the year 2011. All of them work as daily labours. There is no mentioning in the said Part-II of the widow of the deceased.

8. No affidavit-in-opposition has been used by the respondent.

9. The application has been made after 11years from the date of death of the employee.

10. In support of his case the Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

1. Sushma Gosain versus Union of India and Others, (1989) 4 SCC 468.

2. Phoolwati Versus Union of India and Others, (1991) AIR SC 469

3. Sabrabibi Usman Khan Pathan Versus Superintending Engineer , GE Board and Others, (1994) 5 SLR 138, a case of Gujarat High Court.

4. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Versus Dinesh Bhai Mani Bhai Panchal, (1995) 6 SLR 517, a case of Gujarat High Court).

The petitioner has also relied upon two unreported judgments:

1. W.P. 5102 (W) of 2013 (Md. Jakir Hossen Versus State of West Bengal and Others) a case of Calcutta High Court,

2. W.P. 17519 (w) of 2015 (Md. Jakir Hossen Versus State of West Bengal and other) a case of Calcutta High Court.

11. In Sushma Gosain's case the husband of Sushma Gosain, one Ram Kumar, died in October, 1982 and Sushma Gosain sought appointment in November, 1982. In January 1983 she was called for the written test and later on was called for the interview. Subsequently she passed the Trade test but was not given appointment. In September 1985 she filed the writ petition when the concerned Ministry stated, relying on a notification dated 25.01.1985 that in its establishment appointment of any female was prohibited. Accepting such objection the writ application was dismissed. Against such dismissal appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal was allowed with the observation that it was imprope