Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1361
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Aniruddha Roy, J.
Tanusree Mazumdar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 16525 of 2017
Decided On :13-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Md. Majnu Sk.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the requirement for detailed reasons and specific financial hardship calculations in rejecting compassionate appointment claims, emphasizing the strict compliance with the compassionate appointment policy.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Non-Teaching Staff - West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (Rules 20 and 21) - The court discussed the provisions of Clause 2 of the Procedure under Schedule V of the 2009 Rules, which governs compassionate appointment in place of an incapacitate non-teaching staff. The court emphasized the requirement for detailed reasons and specific financial hardship calculations in rejecting compassionate appointment claims. The court affirmed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an unmarried daughter of an incapacitated non-teaching staff, sought compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the respondent no.3. The petitioner challenged the rejection, citing lack of detailed reasons and non-compliance with the Procedure under Schedule V of the 2009 Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order provided sufficient details and reasons for rejecting the compassionate appointment claim. It emphasized the strict compliance with the compassionate appointment policy and upheld the respondent's decision.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, the sufficiency of reasons provided in the impugned order, and the compliance with the Procedure under Schedule V of the 2009 Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order rejecting the compassionate appointment claim was in compliance with the Procedure under Schedule V of the 2009 Rules and provided sufficient details and reasons. It emphasized the strict application of the compassionate appointment policy.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a hearing matter.
2. The office note dated January 17, 2018 shows that despite there being a direction for filing affidavits on August 16, 2017, no affidavit-in-opposition was filed.
3. Considering the issue involved in this writ petition and considering the fact that, the writ petition is pending since 2017, this Court is of the view that, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Hence, this Court proceeds to consider and dispose of the writ petition on the available records.
4. Through this writ petition the writ petitioner has challenged the impugned decision of the respondent no.3 dated February 27, 2017, Annexure-P16 at page 51 to the writ petition under which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected.
5. The petitioner claimed to be the unmarried daughter of one Dhaneswar Mazumdar who was a Non- Teaching staff of Amarun Station Sikshaniketan (H.S.), District – Burdwan. Due to his incapacitation, he retired on March 31, 2011. The petitioner submitted her application being the unmarried daughter of the incapacitate employee. The petitioner and her mother were the dependents of the said teacher.
6. The petitioner seeking a compassionate appointment in the post of “Group - C” as a Clerk, filed a previous writ petition being W.P. 29029 (W) of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of by a coordinate Bench by its order dated December 21, 2015, Annexure – P12 at page 40 to the writ petition. The coordinate Bench directed the respondent no.3 to consider the case of the petitioner by passing a reasoned order within a time-frame.
7. Pursuant to the said direction the case was considered and the impugned order was passed on February 27, 2017 whereby the claim of the petitioner for Compassionate Appointment was rejected.
8. Mr. Biswarup Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the impugned order, Annexure – P16 at page 51 to the writ petition submits that, the reasons provided for rejection thereunder were cryptic and without any details and particulars as required to be mentioned in the impugned order of rejection, in accordance with law.
9. Mr. Biswas then refers to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (for short the said 2009 Rules). With specific reference to the Procedure, Manner of Application and Preparation of Panel for Appointment on Compassionate Ground (for short the said Procedure) as provided under Schedule V to the said 2009 Rules and Rules 20 and 21 of the said 2009 Rules, learned counsel submits that, the case of the petitioner since in place of an incapacitate non-teaching staff, who was compelled to retire due to his incapacitance, shall be governed under Clause 2 of the said Procedure.
10. Referring to Clause 1 from the said Procedure Mr. Biswas submits that, a specific provision has been made for calculating the “Financial Hardship” suffered by the family members of a deceased employee who died-in-harness. Similarly, for calculating the “Financial Hardship” for an incapacitate employee for granting compassionate appointment is also specified under Clause 2 of the said Procedure and the respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order has proceeded without complying the provisions laid down under Clause 2 of the said Procedure. He submits that, the dichotomy in said two provisions are also not permitted in law, while assessing the Financial Hardship.
11. Referring to the said impugned decision of the respondent no.3 Mr. Biswas submits that, merely a statement that, the family income of the incapacitate staff was not less than the Group – D staff of the State Government would not do but the same must provide for the detailed and break up of the family income of a Group – D staff of the State Government and then the comparison would have to be shown whether the family income of the incapacitate staff is higher than that.
12. Learned counsel
