Anirban Banerjee @ Anirban ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2175 Cal

S/L 7
19.03.2021
Court No.26
SD
                                 WPA 5375 of 2021
                             (Via Video Conference)
                    Anirban Banerjee @ Anirban Bandyopadhyay
                                        Vs.
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.

              Ms. Mousumi Bhowal
                                                    ... for the Petitioner.
              Mr. Pinaki Dhole
              Ms. Ananya Neogi
                                                       ... for the State.
              Dr. Chapales Bandyopadhyay
              Ms. Anandamayee Dutta
                                                       ... for the WBCSSC.

                     This is an application under Article 226 of the

              Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved

              by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in

considering his representation dated November 27, 2020

with regard to compassionate appointment on the death of

his father in the year 1988.

It is clear from the facts that the employee concerned

expired 32 years ago. Subsequently, the wife of the employee

had made an application in the year 1988 for compassionate

appointment. Subsequently, in the year 1993 the mother of

the petitioner and the petitioner once again applied seeking

appointment for the petitioner. It is the case of the

petitioner that since 1993 no steps have been taken.

A catena of judgment of the Supreme Court had

categorically held that the compassionate appointment is

given to a member of the family of the deceased employee

who dies-in-harness to meet the urgent financial exigency

that may arise upon the sudden death of the employee.

The fact of the matter is that compassionate

appointment is an exception to Articles 15 and 16 of the

Constitution of India and has to be granted specifically as

per the scheme/rules framed by the

Government/institutions. In the present case, there has

been an inordinate delay in approaching this Court, that is, a

period of almost 30 years, for relief for the purpose of

compassionate appointment.

Accordingly, this Court is not able to grant any

specific relief. However, it would be appropriate that the

representation dated November 27, 2020 made before the

District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Hooghly be disposed of

by the officer concerned within a period of twelve weeks

from date.

I make it clear that the officer concerned shall pass a

reasoned order in accordance with law and the observations

made in the writ petition may also be kept in mind.

With these above observations and directions, this

writ petition stands disposed of.

Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for

the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have

not been admitted by the respondents.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

necessary formalities.

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)