JUDGMENT :

(Debangsu Basak, J.) :

1. The writ petition is directed against order dated July 19, 2022 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in OA no. 191 of 2017 directing the State to consider an application for compassionate appointment afresh in light of the notifications governing the field after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in 2022 SCC Online SC 174 (Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa & Ors.)

2. The writ petition is at the behest of the State. Learned senior Government advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the employee died on July 20, 2006. The employee was survived by his widow and two sons. Petitioner is the youngest son. The widow of the deceased employee made an application for compassionate appointment, albit not informed, on January 30, 2007. The widow did not pursue such application for compassionate appointment. The elder son who was an adult at that point of time, also did not applied for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, in 2010, the private respondent, who is the youngest son of the deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment in 2010. The application for compassionate appointment not being considered, the private respondent approached the tribunal by way of OA 455 of 2014 which was disposed of by an order dated August 18, 2014 requiring the authorities to consider and decide such application. The authorities issued a reasoned order dated December 16, 2014 rejecting the claim of the private respondent. The rejection was made a subject matter of challenge in OA 371 of 2015 which was disposed of by an order dated December 16, 2015 to consider the application for compassionate appointment afresh. The authorities passed an order of rejection dated March 14, 2016. The same was challenged by the private respondent before the tribunal in OA 556 of 2016. Such original application was disposed of on July 28, 2016 requiring the authorities to revisit the issue once again. The authorities passed another reasoned order dated January 9, 2017 rejecting the claim of the private respondent. The same was made subject matter of the OA 191 of 2017 which was disposed of by the impugned judgment and order.

3. Learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits, the authorities considered the application for compassionate appointment of the private respondent in light of the two notifications governing the field. Alternatively, she submits that at the time of death, private respondent was not entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of Emp no. 97 dated May 6, 2005. Even if the authorities are to take into consideration the subsequent notification of 2013 being Emp. 251 dated December 3, 2013 and the extension of time granted by the notification being Emp. 26 dated March 1, 2016 then also, the application for compassionate appointment cannot be allowed. In support of such contention, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to various provisions of the two schemes.

4. Learned Senior Government advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon a co-ordinate Bench Judgment reported at 2019 SCC Online, Calcutta 407 (Azim Gazi vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and submits, the private respondent is not entitled to the relief of compassionate appointment. She relies upon 1999 SCC (L & S) 1162 (Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C & Anr. Vs. M. Sampoornamma) and submits since there subsists legal right in favour of the private respondent for the authorities to consider, the learned tribunal erred in directing the authorities to consider the application for compassionate appointment made by the private respondent.

5. Referring to the impugned order, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the factual matrix in the present case is completely different. She submits that, factual matrix of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment referred to in the