Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rana Bouri vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 January, 2021
25.01.2021
3
ns Ct.04
M.A.T. 1231 of 2019
With
I.A. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 8844 of 2019)
With
I.A. CAN 2 of 2019 (Old CAN 8845 of 2019)
Rana Bouri.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee .... For appellant.
Mr. Jahar Lal De,
Ms. Smita Das Dey .... For State.
Mr. De, learned advocate appears on behalf of
State, respondents in the appeal. He files affidavit of his
client producing the document being application dated 25 th
April, 2000 of appellant made on plain paper. Mr. Banerjee,
learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and on
instructions, confirms this is the application that had been
made by his client. The documentary evidence is taken as
additional evidence, produced in the appeal as required by
Court to enable it to pronounce judgment.
Mr. De submits, appellant had misled the first
Court. Appellant had introduced proforma regarding
employment of dependants of Government employees dying
while in service, filled up and submitted by appellant on
11th April, 2011. This is why learned first Court fixed date
of application as made 10 years after the employee died.
Mr. Banerjee points out that memo dated 8 th April, 2010
was the document relied upon by the first Court to fix the
date of making of application as 10 years after date of
death. The memo is dated 8th April, 2010 and the employee
died on 2nd March, 2000. The proforma application is dated
thereafter as on 11th April, 2011.
By consent of parties, we take up the appeal
for hearing and disposal. Mr. De waives notice of appeal.
Appellant's contention is that factual basis of
impugned judgment is incorrect.
In impugned judgment dated 14 th February,
2020, the factual basis has been stated as follows:
".........Here, in this case the
application for compassionate
appointment has been made after 10
years from the death of the petitioner's
father. Thus there was no case of
sudden economic crises for the
family......."
Respondent's contention, on production of the
evidence, have been recorded above. We find that the
factual basis of impugned order, by reason of omission of
the evidence and otherwise, is incorrect. As such
impugned order is reversed.
Respondents will consider and deal with the
application dated 25th April, 2000, which culminated in
proforma application dated 11th April, 2011. Respondents
will take a decision within six weeks from date of
communication of this order. The decision should be made
known to the appellant within that time. Appellant in
complying with this order will act in accordance with law.
Mr. Banerjee also prays for expunging certain
observations made by the first Court, in order dated 14 th
February, 2020, while correcting inadvertent errors crept in
impugned order. He files affidavit and submits, thereby the
position on defect stands clarified. We do not feel such is
necessary since we have reversed impugned order.
The appeal and applications are disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
