Union Of India vs Maimul Begam & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3586 Cal

Item-   06-07-2021                       WP.CT 15 of 2021
 27
                                        Union of India
                                             Versus
                                       Maimul Begam & Anr.
 sg       Ct. 16
                                   (Through Video Conference)


                           Mr. Shankar Ranjan Sen, Adv.
                                                  ...for the petitioner/UOI


                           The wife of the deceased was the applicant before the

                     Central Administrative Tribunal with a prayer for quashing of

                     the Office Order dated 19th February, 2016 and for giving

                     appointment to her younger son who had attained majority

                     recently.

                           It appears from record that the husband of the private

                     respondent no.1 died on 6th May, 2009 and till about 2016, the

petitioners did not consider the application for compassionate

appointment although, it is not being denied that the petitioners

are entitled to compassionate appointment. The private

respondent No.1 applied before the appropriate authority on 29 th

March, 2012, stating that instead of her elder son, the younger

son may be considered for suitable appointment and in view of

the fact that he was only 14½ years on 29th March, 2012, his case

may be considered after he attained the prescribed age of

appointment in Railway Services.

It is unfortunate that till July 2016, the case of the

petitioners was not considered. The wife of the deceased has

given a justification for not giving the appointment to his elder

son. The private respondent no.1, on 26th July, 2016, made a

further representation and made a fervent appeal to the

authorities to consider the case of appointment of his younger

son to save the family from starvation. The economic need of the

family for a compassionate appointment has never been denied.

However, on 31st May, 2017, the authority concerned

instead of considering the representation of the petitioners with

regard to the appointment of the younger son on compassionate

appointment, rejected the said claim on a specious plea that the

educational certificates furnished in respect of her elder son was

fake and without even considering the need of the family,

rejected the claim of the petitioners for compassionate

appointment. The poor widow was punished for an alleged

offence of her elder son at a point of time when the fact remains

that the prayer for compassionate appointment of the elder son

was withdrawn much earlier and at the time of consideration for

compassionate appointment the earlier application ought not to

have been considered.

We feel that the learned Tribunal has correctly relied upon

the coordinate Bench decision in Sushila Bauri & Anr. vs.

Union of India & Ors. in WP.CT No. 249 of 2013 dated 4th

July, 2013 in which on similar circumstances, the authorities

were directed to reconsider the case for compassionate

appointment.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress

upon us by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Local Administration Department & Anr.

vs. M. Selvanayagam alias Kumaravelu reported in (2011) 13

Supreme Court Cases 42 and submitted that the immediate need

for compassionate appointment is lost by reason of lapse of time.

Now the question arises who is responsible for such

inordinate delay. The principle of social justice is defeated by

the long neglect and inaction in not considering the application

of the widow filed in time. It has not been disputed even before

the learned Tribunal that the criteria for compassionate

appointment of the deceased has not been fulfilled.

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

However, in view of the pendency of this application, we direct

the authorities to reconsider the claim of the applicants within

three weeks from date in the light of the observations made by

us in this order and pass an order afresh uninfluenced by any

other previous orders or views.

We hope and trust that the authorities concerned shall

sympathetically consider the case for compassionate

appointment considering the economic need of the family.

The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

In view of the fact that the respondents are not represented,

the petitioner and the department are directed to communicate

this order to the respondents at the address mentioned in the

cause title within one week from date by speed post with

acknowledgment due.

All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this

order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)