Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay WPA 26328 of 2017 Soma Banerjee Versus WBSEDCL & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya For the Respondents : Mr. Sumit Ray.

Heard & Judgment on : 4^th March, 2025.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. The father of the petitioner expired on 2^nd July, 2009 while he was functioning as Junior Manager (F & A) in the office of the Bankura ‘D’ Circle. On the demise of the aforesaid employee, namely, Ranjit Kumar Banerjee, the respondent/Company sought for the academic qualification and an affidavit for consideration of employment of the petitioner under “died in harness” capacity on 13.03.2013. Subsequently, on 11.08.2016 the respondent/Company sought for further set of documents from the petitioner. The petitioner complied with the submission of documents corresponding to letters dated 11.03.2013 and 11.08.2016 as well as filled up the option form. The mother of the petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee did not object to such application for grant of compassionate appointment vide an affidavit dated 22.08.2016. However, on 26.03.2013 the respondent/Company intimated the petitioner, owing to the marital status of the petitioner the Memo No. ES & ER2/DD EMP/113 dated 13.03.2013 was cancelled and withdrawn.

2. The learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that the respondent/Company arbitrarily exceeding its jurisdiction and in violation of the decision in FMA/1227/2015 pronounced by this Special Bench of this Court should not have denied or even disregarded the aforesaid Memo exclusively on the basis of the marital status of the petitioner. The act of the respondent/Company contradicted the constitutional mandate as well as the legislative intent to grant benefit to the family members of the deceased employee contrary to Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned Advocate representing the respondent/Company submitted that the compassionate appointment granted to the family members of the deceased employee was at the relevant time governed by the scheme promulgated for granting compassionate appointment effective at the time of considering the application for compassionate appointment. The status of the petitioner at the time of granting compassionate appointment to have been a married individual was not provided by the scheme of 2009 and accordingly the respondent/Company refused to consider the compassionate appointment to have been granted in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent/Company is bound to grant compassionate appointment adhering to the policies and principles laid down in the scheme at any relevant point of time which is governed by the same.

4. The learned Advocate representing the respondent/Company has relied on the decision pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2010) 11 SCC 661 at paragraphs 8, 9 to 12 which are as follows:-

“8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand, it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is, therefore, traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application see