The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions under the relevant scheme for compassionate appointment are mandatory in nature, and the subsequent declaration of Govind Prakash Verma not to be a good law influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Facts:

1. This is a hearing matter on affidavits.

2. The father of the petitioner was working as an approved Headmaster at one Babupur High School (H.S), District- Malda (for short, the school). The father of the petitioner died in harness on September 25, 2010, Annexure P-1 at page 15 to the writ petition, leaving behind, inter alia, the petitioner.

3. In May, 2011 the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, Annexure P-2 at page 16 to the writ petition. The application was processed by the school authority and was submitted for compassionate appointment of the petitioner before the appropriate authority Annexure P-3 at page 18 to the writ petition. On May 15, 2012 the respondent no.3 rejected the prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground that the family of the petitioner appeared to be not in a financial distress, Annexure P-4 at page 19 to the writ petition.

4. Challenging the said impugned decision of the respondent no.3 the petitioner moved a writ petition being WP No. 18767(W) of 2012 when a Coordinate Bench by its order dated December 6, 2012 quashed the said impugned order passed by the respondent no.3 and directed the matter to consider afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of: Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation, reported at 2005 SCC (L&S) 590, Annexure P-5 at page 23 to the writ petition.

5. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction of the Coordinate Bench the respondent no.3 passed its reasoned order dated December 20, 2013, Annexure P-6 at page 25 to the writ petition and rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

6. Assailing the said impugned order dated December 20, 2013 the instant writ petition was filed. The reliefs claimed in this writ petition were for setting aside of the said impugned decision of the respondent no.3 and to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit affirmed on March 23, 2023. On behalf of respondent no.3 a report in the form of affidavit affirmed on August 14, 2023 was filed. The petitioner has also filed an exception thereto in the form of affidavit affirmed on September 20, 2023.

Submissions:

8. Referring to the said impugned order dated December 20, 2023 Mr. Sounak Bhattacharyya learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order had misconstrued the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of: Govind Prakash Verma (supra).

9. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharyya submits that, the computation of the income of the family of a deceased employee on the basis of the employment benefit earned by the family on account of the death of the deceased employee cannot be taken into account, while considering the case of the compassionate appointment for the ward of the deceased employee.

10. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench In the matter of: Tapan Kumar Barman vs. The State of West Bengal, reported at 2008 SCC OnLine 52: (2009) 1 CHN 23.

11. Mr. Bhattacharyya then on the same proposition relied upon a further judgment of a Coordinate Bench, In the matter of: Sreyashi Banerjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors, dated April 11, 2014 rendered in W.P. No. 9657 (W) of 2014, which is made a part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner affirmed on March 23, 2023.

12. In the light of the above submissions Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that the impugned decision of the respondent no.3 dated December 20, 2013 should be set aside and the compassionate appointment should be granted to the petitioner.

13. Mr. Avishek Prasad learned State Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that, granting of compassionate appointment is a benevolent policy decision of the State, unless such policy/scheme exists for granting compassionate appointment, such an appointment cannot be granted. Granting of compassionate a