The word ‘son’ used in Clause 2 (2) of the notification dated August 14, 2008 would include a step son as much as it would include biological/adopted/illegitimate son.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The issue that has fallen for consideration in the present writ petition is whether a stepson of a police personnel of Kolkata Police is entitled to compassionate appointment in the died in harness category.

2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the mother of the petitioner No. 2 had married one Ganesh Chandra Saha and out of such wedlock, the petitioner No. 2 and his sister were born on January 23, 1981. Ganesh Chandra Saha had died on January 31, 1989. The mother of the petitioner No. 2 had married Bhola Nath Kar on June 15, 1992. The petitioner No. 2 along with his mother and sister were residing with Bhola Nath Kar till his death on August 27, 2003. Bhola Nath Kar had died in harness as a Traffic Constable under the Kolkata Traffic Police. The petitioner No. 2 had applied for compassionate appointment.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the Reserve Officer, Traffic Department by letters dated December 28, 2005 and August 6, 2008 requested the petitioner No. 2 to change his surname from “Saha” to “Kar” for the competent authority to consider the prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner No. 2 had applied before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education for change of name. The petitioner No. 2 had filed a writ petition being WP No. 1617 (W) of 2009 which was disposed of on February 18, 2010 directing the President of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to pass appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner No. 2 dated September 4, 2008. The Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had corrected all educational qualification certificates of the petitioner No. 2. Such corrected educational testimonials had been submitted with the authorities.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the authorities had enquired as to whether the deceased employee adopted the petitioner No. 2 or not, to which the mother of the petitioner No. 2 responded. By a letter dated October 20, 2011, the authorities informed petitioner No. 2 that they regretted the inability to accede to the proposal of employment of the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate grounds without assigning any reasons in respect thereof. The petitioners had approached the Tribunal for redressal. By the impugned order dated May 16, 2013, the Tribunal had declined to grant relief to the petitioners.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, in the context of a state government employee, the word ‘son’ would include a stepson. In support of such contention, he has drawn the attention of the court to the West Bengal Service Rules, Part II (Compensatory Allowance Rules) and in particular to Rule 4 (7) thereof. He has contended that, in the Compensatory Allowance Rules, stepchildren were included in the definition of a family of a government employee. He has drawn the attention of the court to the notification bearing No. 276 (100)-EMP dated April 18, 1988 and contended that, the state government acknowledged that there was no precise definition of the terms “near relations” and ‘dependants’ as appearing in the department circular dated October 17, 1977 and June 19, 1978.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the court to the notification bearing No. 97-EMP dated June 6, 2005 and the notification bearing No. 114-EMP dated August 14, 2008. He has also referred to the West Bengal Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2013 and to 2022 SCC OnLine SC 229 (Mukesh Kumar and another Vs. The Union of India and others) and contended that, a stepson cannot be denied compassionate appointment.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the State has contended that, the petitioner No. 2 is not the biological son of the deceased employee. The deceased employee had, during his lifetime, not adopted the petitioner No. 2 as his son. He has referred to the provisions