Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Krishna Rao, J.
Masud Choudhury - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPA 11964 of 2016
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Compassionate Appointment - Limitation Act - The court held that the time limit for submitting an application for compassionate appointment is rigid and cannot be extended, especially when the applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the employee. The court emphasized that the concept of continuous wrong giving rise to a continuous cause of action does not apply for creating a substantive right that is non-existent. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner's counsel was deemed inapplicable as it did not address the issue of whether a subsequent application made after the statutory period can be considered a continuing process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father, who was an Assistant Teacher. The request was rejected by the District Inspector of School due to the application being submitted after a period of 16 years from the father's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was time-barred and did not require any interference based on the judgment of the Larger Bench.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment, submitted after 16 years from the death of the employee, could be considered valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time limit for submitting an application for compassionate appointment is rigid and cannot be extended, especially when the applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the employee. The concept of continuous wrong giving rise to a continuous cause of action does not apply for creating a substantive right that is non-existent.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the District Inspector of School was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Krishna Rao, J. - Vide order dt. 05.08.2016 direction for filling of affidavit was given but no affidavit is filed. On 21.02.2017 an extension was sought for and the same was extended for a further period of two weeks but no affidavit has been filed. Since 05.06.2018 no one is appearing for the respondents. On 15.02.2022, a notice was again issued upon the Counsel for the respondents but no one appeared on behalf of respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Inspector of School (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur vide Memo No. 2242 dt. 26.08.2015 wherein the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected.
3. The father of the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1990. On 27.08.1999 the father of the petitioner expired leaving the petitioner as his legal heir. The mother of the petitioner was the pre-deceased to the father of the petitioner.
4. The date of birth of the petitioner is 02.01.1992 and at the time of the death of the father, the petitioner was aged about 7 years. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the grandmother of the petitioner had made an application to the District Inspector of School on 02.07.2001 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground on attaining the age of majority.
5. The request of the grandmother of the petitioner was forwarded by the School Authority to the District Inspector of School. In the mean time, the petitioner persuaded his studies and obtained graduation degree. In the year 2015, when the petitioner attained the majority and obtained graduation degree had made a representation to the District Inspector of School for appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of his father in harness.
6. On receipt of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the District Inspector of School rejected the prayer of the petitioner with the reason, as per existing rules, prayer for enlistment of name in the register should be submitted within two years from the date of death of employee but the petitioner has submitted application after the period of 15/16 years. The Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain -Vs- State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195, Khadeja Bibi & Ors. -Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) CLJ 108 and Bimal Kumar Gayen & Anr. -Vs- State & Ors. reported in 1995 (1) CLJ 393.
7. The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Piali Saha -Vs- State of West Bengal reported in (2013) (1) CHN 18 had decided that Section 6 (1) of the Limitation Act is applied for taking action before the judicial fora for asserting a right which has accrued already, not for acquiring or creating right which is non-existent. Provision of Section 6 of the Limitation Act is essentially designed to provide a safe guard measure against legal disability in bringing legal action to assert right before the judicial fora. When the rule creating some substantive right does not envisaged any power to condone delay how Court can do it. Again we add concept of continuous wrong giving rise continuous cause of action applies in judicial proceeding for assessing existing right either codified or common law against wrong-doer, not for creating substantive right now non-existent. The Hon'ble Larger Bench has categorically held that the Court cannot have any amending power of the legislation. The Hon'ble Larger Bench has held that the time fixed in the Rule is a rigid, subsequent application after attaining majority is not a lawful application and the same cannot be said to be continuing process.
8. The instant case is squarely covered in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Larger Bench (supra) as the petitioner was minor at the time of the death of the father. The father of the petitioner expired in the year 1999 and the petitioner became major in the year 2013 and thereafter in the year 2015, the petitioner has made an applicatio
The time limit for submitting an application for compassionate appointment is rigid and cannot be extended, especially when the applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the employee.
The prescribed time limit for compassionate appointment is mandatory and cannot be extended, and delayed applications do not meet the eligibility criteria.
The ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for making compassionate appointment should not be exceeded.
Employment and Service matter - Compassionate appointment - By causing a delay of seven years in approaching Court, petitioner cannot claim any legal right to be considered for compassionate appointm....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but if an applicant is bona fide and fulfills the necessary qualifications, ....
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
