IMPORTANT POINT
Family pension should not be considered in determining the financial condition of the family for compassionate appointment, and non-compliance with court directions can be deemed contemptuous.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Heard Mr. Ekramul Bari, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Sougata Mitra, learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, learned counsel for the respondent District Primary School Council.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order/memo of the sixth respondent dated 18.1.2016 and to direct the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner under compassionate ground to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School.

3. The mother of the petitioner died in harness while she was in service in the capacity of Assistant Teacher. An application was made by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools on 25.1.2008. Under memo dated 19.11.2009, the sixth respondent rejected the application by citing paragraphs 20, 21 and Schedule 5 of the Government Order dated 9.7.2009. Challenging the memo, the petitioner has filed a writ petition and, by the order dated 31.3.2011, the said writ petition was disposed of thereby setting aside the memo and directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider the petitioner’s prayer for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the rules which were in existence on the date of the death of the deceased teacher.

4. Under memo dated 1.7.2011, the District Inspector of Schools (SE) forwarded the matter to the Director of School Education and, under letter dated 4.7.2012, the Chairman of the Council forwarded the proposal to the Commissioner of School Education and the Commissioner of School Education asked the Council for suppression of certain documents and the Council was also requested to resubmit the financial pro-forma after appropriate modification. However, under memo dated 18.1.2016, the prayer for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Council on the ground that the family income of the petitioner has been found to be more than the salary of the Group D employee. Challenging the memo dated 18.1.2016, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the Chairman is nothing but a nullity in the eye of law, as the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation has been by passed and that the Chairman has reiterated the earlier view which was turned down by this Court. While calculating the family income of the petitioner, the pension amount has been taken into account and the said course adopted by the respondent authority is impermissible in law.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that despite recording the name of the petitioner under die-in-harness category, the District Inspector of Schools again rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been suffering from any financial hardship and her income including family pension exceeds that of the income of the Group D employee.

7. The learned counsel urged that the consideration of family pension in the income of the petitioner is contrary to law as has been decided by this Court in various judicial pronouncements and after recording the name of the petitioner in die-in-harness category, the concerned authority has wrongly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Such an act of the respondent authority is liable to be quashed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Hooghly District Primary School Council submit that the total family income is Rs.9118/- which comprises the pension of Dinabandhu Koley, husband of the deceased and the income from other source is Rs.200/- per month. Thus, the total income is more than sufficient to provide a square meal and other essentials to the two family members and the family cannot be considered financially distressed. The aforesaid income is even more than the salary of Group D employee at the material point of time. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the i