Substance over form prevails in compassionate appointment applications; timely submission is essential, but notifications not in existence at the time of application cannot impose retrospective barriers.

JUDGMENT : 

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.

1.This writ petition is filed seeking for direction upon the respondent authorities to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground on the basis of the application dated 3^rd October, 2005.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the father of the petitioner Jatindra Nath Halder was appointed in the post of Chaukidar in Sindrani Gram Panchayat, Bagdah Development Block, South 24-Parganas on 19^th February, 1971. The father of the petitioner while discharging his service as a peon died-in-harness on 2^nd August, 2005 leaving behind his wife Binodini Halder and his son Sanjay Halder (writ petition herein) and three daughters. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner was 58 years old. Upon demise of his father, the petitioner made an application on 3rd October, 2005 seeking for his appointment on such consequence. Since such application was not considered and decided, subsequently the petitioner once again filed an application in proper format on 22^nd June, 2010. The respondent No.2, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Panchayat and Rural Development Department by its letter dated 13^th January, 2023 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in die-in- harness category on the ground of delay in submission of proforma application as per provision laid down in the notification no.251-Emp. dated 03.12.2013 and notification no.26-Emp. dated 01.03.2016 of Labour Department, this Deptt’s memo no.4097/PN/O/III/2A- 63/2014 dated 29.09.2014 and Labour Deptt’s U.O. no.46 Emp. dated 07.07.2022. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Dhananjay Nayek, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the application on compassionate ground has been submitted by the petitioner on 3^rd October, 2005, i.e. within a period of three months from the date of death of his father. The said application was forwarded to the concerned authority by the Pradhan of local Gram Panchayat for necessary action. Since no steps were taken in the meantime, the petitioner on 22^nd June, 2010 filed an application in proper format in continuation to his earlier application for appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, there is no delay in seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the part of the petitioner and hence the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is not tenable. Relying on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shreejith L. versus Deputy Director (Education) Kerala & Ors. reported in (2012) 7 SCC 248 he submits that the authority is supposed to consider the application in its substance and not the form. The appointment on compassionate ground is made under a beneficial scheme aimed at helping those in need of assistance on account of an untimely demise in the family. Further he indicates that there was no communication made from the State authorities to cure any defect in the application dated 3rd October, 2005 within a reasonable period and after a lapse of almost 18 years the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been turned down. He seeks for setting aside of such rejection with a direction upon the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground within a stipulated period.

4. On the contrary, Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the State submits that the proforma of the application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted in the year 2010 which is almost after five years of demise of the father of the petitioner. The notification of the Government clearly indicates that the application for appointment on compassionate ground is to be made within a period of six months from the date of demise of the employee. Therefore, the aforesaid order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for appoin