Compassionate appointment is a discretionary policy of the State, and the discretion must be exercised judiciously and within the legal framework.

JUDGMENT

1. Affidavit of service filed today in Court is taken on record.

Facts:

2. The writ petitioner had received a compassionate appointment with effect from August 14, 2014 in place and stead of his deceased mother who was a State employee, Annexure P-6 at page 34 to the writ petition.

3. The mother of the writ petitioner died-in-harness on April 10, 1995. The application for compassionate appointment was made on April 27, 1995. The State authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on August 2, 1996, Annexure P-3 at page 19 to the writ petition. The rejection was communicated to the petitioner on February 8, 2002.

4. Assailing the said decision for rejection of compassionate appointment the petitioner filed the first round of writ litigation being W.P. No. 6696 (W) of 2002. The writ petition was allowed by a co-ordinate bench on May 10, 2012, Annexure P-4 at page 20 to the writ petition whereby the said decision for rejection of compassionate appointment dated August 2, 1996 was set aside and the Director of School Education was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order in the light of the observation made therein within a specified time frame and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. No appeal was carried out from the said order of the co-ordinate bench.

5. Pursuant to and in terms of the direction made by the co-ordinate bench dated May 10, 2012 the Commissioner of School Education passed its reasoned order dated July 8, 2013, Annexure P-5 at page 29 to the writ petition and the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment with effect from August 14, 2014, Annexure P-6 at page 34 to the writ petition.

6. The petitioner had accepted the said appointment and had carried out with his employment accordingly. The petitioner ultimately retired on July 31, 2016.

7. Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has claimed that, the date of appointment of the petitioner should be treated as August 2, 1996 without any remuneration instead of August 14, 2014 as claimed in Prayer (a) to the writ petition.

Submissions:

8. Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, immediately after rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment on August 2, 1996, the decision was not communicated to the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner on February 8, 2002. The petitioner immediately thereafter filed the previous writ petition in or about May 2002. The writ petition was pending till 2012 and ultimately was allowed by the co-ordinate bench by its order dated May 10, 2012. Following the direction of the co-ordinate bench the Commissioner of School Education gave appointment to the petitioner with effect from August 14, 2014. The petitioner had no role to play for this long pendency of the writ petition. The moment the rejection order dated August 2, 1996 was set aside by the co-ordinate bench under its order dated May 10, 2012, the claim of the petitioner relates back as on the date of rejection i.e. August 2, 1996. The petitioner, therefore, claims the employment benefit with effect from August 2, 1996.

9. Mr. Avishek Prasad, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 4 and 5 submits that, the mother of the petitioner was a Work Education Assistant and then became a Work Education Teacher at the relevant School. In view of the policy of the State with the death of the mother of the petitioner the said post for Work Education Teacher was abolished. With the abolition of the said post there was no question for granting any compassionate appointment for the post. He further submits that, for granting compassionate appointment a roster is essentially to be maintained in law and no beneficiary for such claim can overlap the position in the roster. The situation when arises for compassionate appointment the appointment must follow the roster serially. Thus, he submits that, beneficiary for compassionate