Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Amrita Sinha, J.
Animesh Das & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondent
WPA. No. 4088 of 2020
Decided On : 13-07-2022
For the Appellant :Ekramul Bari, Siddhartha Sankar Mondal, Tanuja Basak, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Pinaki Dhole, Parikshit Goswami, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely application for compassionate appointment, the duty of the authority to guide the family in the application process, and the need for prompt action to provide immediate financial relief to the distressed family.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Government Employee - Circular of Labour Department, Circular of Panchayat Department - [Labour Department, Panchayat Department] - [Circular no. 567(100)-EMP dated 18th November, 1997, Circular no. 266/PN/O/I/3S-271/98 dated 28th January, 1999] - The court discussed the application of the circulars of the Labour Department and the Panchayat Department in the context of compassionate appointment. It emphasized the need to consider the financial condition of the family and the timely submission of applications for compassionate appointment. The court also highlighted the duty of the authority to guide the family of the deceased employee in the application process and the importance of acting promptly to provide immediate financial relief to the distressed family.
Fact of the Case:
The widow of a deceased government employee applied for compassionate appointment for her son, who was a minor at the time of the employee's death. The son's application was recommended by a committee, but the Joint Secretary rejected it, citing the son's minority at the time of the employee's death and a delay in application. The widow never applied for the job herself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority failed to inform the widow of the son's ineligibility at the time of the initial application and proceeded with considering the son's candidature. It emphasized the need for timely application and the duty of the authority to guide the family in the application process. The court also noted the prolonged delay in processing the son's application and the lack of consideration for the widow's candidature.
Issues: The issues included the eligibility for compassionate appointment, the timeliness of applications, and the authority's duty to guide the family in the application process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority's failure to inform the widow of the son's ineligibility at the time of the initial application and the prolonged delay in processing the son's application were unjust. It emphasized the need for timely application and the duty of the authority to guide the family in the application process.
Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection of the son's application and directed the Joint Secretary to proceed with the recommendation made in favor of the son for compassionate appointment.
JUDGMENT :
1. The father of the petitioner no.1 and the husband of the petitioner no. 2 was an employee of the Bardhaman Zilla Parishad. He died in harness on 1st May, 2001. The widow made an application before the Zilla Parishad on 28th June, 2001 praying for providing appointment to her son on compassionate ground. She reiterated her prayer for providing appointment to her son once again on 6th March, 2003.
2. By a communicating letter dated 14th June, 2012 the son of the deceased was intimated that in response to the application made for providing appointment on compassionate ground a preliminary enquiry will be made on 27th June, 2012 and he was requested to appear in the office of the Zilla Parishad along with relevant documents in support of his candidature.
3. The three-member enquiry committee recommended the case of the petitioner no. 1 son for being appointed on compassionate ground. The Additional Executive Officer, Bardhaman Zilla Parishad by a communicating memo dated 22nd August, 2012 forwarded the application of the petitioner no. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground duly recommended by three member committee for perusal and necessary action to the Commissioner, Panchayats and Rural Development. The Commissioner, Panchayats and Rural Development by a memo dated 6th September, 2012 forwarded the proposal for appointment of the petitioner no. 1 to the Joint Secretary, Panchayats and Rural Development.
4. As thereafter the respondents did not proceed further with the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP No. 1341 (W) of 2018. The said writ petition was considered and disposed of by this Court on 20th February, 2019 directing the Joint Secretary, Department of Panchayats and Rural Development to consider and dispose of the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of the recommendation made by the Additional Executive Officer, Bardhaman Zilla Parishad.
5. The Joint Secretary duly considered the matter and rejected the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 with the observation that the petitioner no. 1 was a minor at the time of death of his father and when the widow applied for appointment on 28th June, 2001. The petitioner no. 1 attained majority more than two and half years after the death of his father.
6. It was observed that as per the extant rule prevalent at that time for compassionate appointment, application ought to have been filed within one year. The Joint Secretary passed order that the case of the widow may be taken up for consideration if she is otherwise eligible for appointment and subject to the approval of the competent authority. It was clearly mentioned that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment in lieu of the candidature of the widow.
7. Consequent to the order passed by the Joint Secretary, request has been made to the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer to forward the relevant documents along with three-member enquiry report in respect of the widow for considering her appointment, if she is willing, on compassionate ground.
8. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same.
9. According to the petitioners as the Commissioner, Panchayats and Rural Development already recommended the proposal for appointment of the petitioner no. 1 way back in the year 2012, as such, after so many years, his candidature ought not to be rejected.
10. It has been submitted that at the relevant point of time there was no time limit specified for filing application for being appointed on compassionate ground. The widow of the employee, immediately after the death of her husband, filed the application for providing employment to her son. The said application was duly proceeded and the three-member enquiry committee recommended the candidature of the son.
11. The petitioner has relied upon the circular of the Labour Department being no. 567(100)-EMP dated 18th November, 1997 wherein it has been mentioned that a son/daughter/near rel
