Family pension is a relevant factor in determining financial hardship for compassionate appointment under the West Bengal Central Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules 2009.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This writ petition is at the instance of the son of an Assistant Teacher of a high school who died in harness praying for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground after setting aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Bankura dated 14.11.2009.

2. The father of the petitioner who was an approved Assistant Teacher of a High School died in harness on 05.06.2016 leaving behind him surviving his widow and the petitioner as his only heir, heiress and legal representative. The mother of the petitioner submitted a representation before the District Inspector of Schools (SE) hereinafter referred to as “DI” on 22.08.2016. The said application was rejected by the DI by an order dated 24.07.2017 which was set aside by a co-ordinate bench by an order dated 16.07.2019 in WP No. 2291(W) of 2019. The co-ordinate bench directed the DI to consider the case of the petitioner afresh by passing a reasoned order. Pursuant to the said order dated 16.07.2019 passed in WP No. 2291 (W) of 2019 the DI passed an order on 14.11.2019 thereby rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the said order of the DI, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Mr. Bari, learned advocate for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Lahiri contended that receipt of family pension by the widow of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that pension is a deferred payment in recognition of the past services of the employer. He also submitted that the scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above what heirs and legal representatives are entitled as benefits arising out of the service upon the death of an employee. Mr. Bari placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention that while considering an application for compassionate appointment the fact that the family of the deceased is getting family pension and also obtained terminal benefits is of no consequence.

a) Canara Bank and Another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported at (2015) 7 SCC 412.

b) Subimal Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal and others reported at 2012(3) CLJ (Cal) 141

c) Shib Narayan Das vs. The State of West Bengal and others delivered on 30.07.2015 in WP No. 25164 (W) of 2014.

4. Mr. Bari further submitted that a Hon’ble Division Bench is in seisin over a similar issue and, therefore, the hearing of this writ petition should be adjourned till the Hon’ble Division Bench decides such issue. In support of such contention he referred to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 07.07.2023 in WPST 4 of 2014 in the case of Rahul Saraswati vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

5. After going through the said order dated 07.07.2023, this Court found that the same is not a final order. The writ petitioner therein was not receiving any family pension. The Hon’ble Division Bench after observing that the claim for compassionate appointment is required to be assessed on the basis of the declared policy directed the concerned authority to submit a report with regard to the claim for compassionate appointment including the financial eligibility in terms of the relevant notification. The Hon’ble Division Bench also directed submission of report inter alia on financial eligibility in terms of the declared policy.

6. The issue raised in the instant writ petition is whether the pensionary benefits can be taken into consideration for deciding the claim for compassionate appointment. Such issue, in my considered view, as is evident from the said order passed in WPST 4 of 2014 is not involved in the application pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench. For such reason, this Court was not inclined to allow the prayer for adjournment and invited the learned advocate for the petitioner to make his submission.

7. The respondents are, however, not represented.

8. It is now well settled that ordinarily public employment must be made stri