Fulmani Murmu & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4512 Cal

06-09-2021
  ct no. 23
   Sl. 12
 Sayandeep
                        W.P.A. 12741 of 2021

                        Fulmani Murmu & Anr.
                             -Versus-
                         Union of India & Ors.

                        (Via Video Conference)


              Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh
              Mr. Smir Kumar Adhikari
              Ms. Priyanka Saha
                                            ...for the petitioners

              Mr. Ajay Chaubey
              Mr. Sankar Sarkar
              Ms. Shakshi Rathi
                                        ....For Union of India


                    This is the 2nd round of litigation between

               the parties. The husband of the petitioner No.

               1 while working in Border Security Force (in

               short BSF) died on 13th November, 1971. After

               about 44 years, the petitioner No. 1 approached

               BSF authorities to provide for compassionate

               appointment to her adopted son, the petitioner

               No. 2.     The application for compassionate

               appointment was initially rejected on 10th

               February, 2018. The petitioner No. 1 thereafter

               made a representation before the authorities to

               reconsider her application.     On 7th January,

               2021, in the petitioners' first writ petition being

               WPA No. 11092 of 2018, an order was passed

               directing the Commandant, BSF, Headquarter,
                             2




77 Battalion, Moga Road, Ferozepur, Punjab to

take a decision with regard to the prayer of the

petitioners         for         being      appointed       on

compassionate ground on the basis of the

enquiry report forwarded by the BDO, Jamboni

Block within a period of 10 weeks from the date

of communication of the said order. In the first

round of litigation, the dispute was as to

whether the petitioner No. 2 is the adopted son

of the petitioner No. 1.                There was also an

allegation    that        the    petitioner   no.   1     had

remarried after the death of her husband and

had given birth two male child and a female

child which disentitled the petitioner No. 2 as

an     adopted       son        to   be    considered     for

compassionate appointment as an adopted son

of the petitioner No. 1.

       Pursuant to the said order dated 7th

January, 2021, the Commandant                  so directed

passed an order on 24th April, 2021 again

rejecting     the         petitioners'     prayer   for     a

compassionate appointment. The reason given

in the said order dated 24th April, 2021 is that

there has been a long delay of 44 years in

applying for compassionate appointment and

this    inordinate         delay     has   disentitled    the

petitioners      from           seeking     compassionate

appointment. Compassionate appointment is
                     3




not a matter of right. The petitioner therefore

cannot    seek    any    mandatory      order    of

appointment after cancelling the rejection order

dated 24th April, 2021 as sought for in the

instant writ petition.     The application for

compassionate    appointment     made     by    the

petitioners have been considered twice and

rejected on both the occasions although on

different grounds. The order dated 24th April,

2021 is a reasoned and detailed order taking

into consideration the scope of the scheme for

compassionate appointment and grounds on

which compassionate appointment is given.

Filing of successive writ petition for achieving a

desired result has been held by the Supreme

Court to be an abuse of process.        Reference

may be given to the Judgment reported in

(2012)5 SCC 398 [Sunil Kumar vs. State of

Haryana] in this regard.

     In the instant case, the petitioner No. 1

has admittedly applied after 44 years and there

is no contrary evidence on record even to prima

facie show that such recording in the order

dated 24th April, 2021 is incorrect. With the

passage of time the age of the petitioner No. 2

has advanced. Even if he was 1 year of age in

1971, his age will be about 50 years as on date.

It may not be possible to give employment on
                           4




   compassionate ground to the petitioner no. 2.

   The present writ petition being the 2nd round of

   litigation in the factual backdrop as aforesaid,

   according to me, is an abuse of process.

           The instant writ petition is accordingly

  dismissed however without any order as to

  costs.

           Since I have not called for any affidavits,

  the allegations contained in the writ petition are

  deemed to have not been admitted by the

  respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this

order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties

upon compliance with the necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)