Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shri Krishnendu Ghoshal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 August, 2022
04
W.P.A. 17444 of 2019
04.08.2022
BD Ct.15
Shri Krishnendu Ghoshal
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Susanta Pal
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray
... for the State.
The petitioner has questioned the decision of
the Commissioner of School Education, West
Bengal issued under memo dated 18th July, 2017
whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment
on compassionate ground due to untimely death of
his mother was spurned.
The Court has perused such decision of the
Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal
which has been taken pursuant to order dated 22nd
September, 2016 passed by a co-ordinate Bench on
a writ petition being WPA 17609 of 2016.
Petitioner's mother was an assistant teacher
in a primary school in the district of Howrah and
died in harness on 1st December, 2010 pursuant
thereto petitioner applied for appointment on
compassionate ground and same was kept pending
which triggered the first writ petition being WPA
17609 of 2016 and the same was disposed of by the
co-ordinate Bench upon directing the respondent
authority to take decision on entitlement of the
petitioner to be appointed under death in harness
category.
Ultimately Commissioner of School
Education, West Bengal, being the respondent no.
2 passed an order rejecting the claim of the
petitioner. It is needed to be indicated herein that
an order was passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench
on intra Court appeals preferred by the contemnor
against two orders one is dated 17th July, 2018 and
another is dated 5th September, 2018 passed in a
contempt proceeding initiated by the petitioner
herein on alleged violation of the order dated 22nd
September, 2016. Ultimately the Hon'ble Division
Bench while disposing of two intra Court appeals
vide judgement dated 30th July, 2019 held the
impugned order of the respondent no. 2 as
contained in memo dated 18th July, 2017 may give
rise to a fresh cause of action but in the contempt
proceeding the legality of the said order cannot be
delved into. Pursuant to the observation made by
the Hon'ble Division Bench in the judgment dated
30th July, 2019 the present writ petition was filed
by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the decision
of the respondent no.2 as contained in memo dated
18th July, 2017 whereby the claim of the petitioner
for according appointment on compassionate
ground was rejected.
Mr. Arabindo Chatterjee, learned senior
advocate representing the petitioner has submitted
that while calculating the family income of the
petitioner in terms of the relevant rules in order to
find out the financial hardship unnecessarily the
respondent no.2 took into consideration annual
income of the father of the petitioner was Rs.
60,000/-. As a result thereof by arithmetical
calculation in terms of the method as contained in
the relevant rules it was found that the monthly
income of the petitioner's' family is Rs. 11794/-
being greater than the gross salary of a Group-D
staff at the material point of time that is Rs.
10,200/-. It has been contended that basis of such
consideration of the annual income of the father of
the petitioner, that is found to be Rs. 60,000/-, is
the certificate issued by the Block Development
Officer, Jagatballavpur, Howrah, dated 10th
December, 2015. It has also been contended that
there is no basis of such certificate issued by the
Block Development Officer and the respondent no.
2 ought not to have relied upon such certificate in
order to come to a conclusion that father of the
petitioner is having yearly income of Rs. 60,000/-.
Therefore, according to the petitioner the
calculation ought to have been made by the
respondent authorities only based on the family
pension which the petitioner's father received due
to death of mother of the petitioner. It has also
been submitted that had the calculation been made
simply on the basis of such family pension which
the father of the petitioner is receiving every month
then the petitioner would have been found to be
eligible for being appointed on compassionate
ground.
Mr. Susanta Pal, learned advocate appears
on behalf of the State respondents and in order to
refute the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the
order passed by the respondent no. 2 which is
impugned in this writ petition wherefrom it appears
on request being made by the respondent no. 2 the
Chairman of the District Primary School Council,
Howrah, vide memo dated 16th June, 2017
forwarded the certificate of the concerned Block
Development Officer dated 10th December, 2015
and on receipt of the same while calculating the
family income of the petitioner according to Mr. Pal
the respondent no. 2 has rightly taken into
consideration Rs. 60,000/- being the yearly income
of the father of the petitioner.
According to the State respondents there is
no anomaly in the order passed by the respondent
no. 2 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground.
This Court has heard the learned advocates
representing the parties and perused the relevant
materials available on record including the
pleadings used by the respective parties.
It appears that in paragraph 13 of the
affidavit-in-opposition it has been specifically
averred on behalf of the State respondents that Sri
Nemai Chandra Ghosal, being the father of the
petitioner by affirming the affidavit on 7th
September, 2011 described himself as retired
person. In addition thereto it is stated that
petitioner's father is a retired employee of Central
Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited (A
Government of India undertaking) and who retired
voluntarily with effect from 31st March, 2001 and in
receipt of monthly pension @ Rs. 1110/-. In
support of such submission a document has been
annexed at page 34 of the affidavit-in-opposition
dated 30th June, 2006 issued by the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) West
Bengal, Howrah, which also corroborates such
statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition.
Having noticed specific averments made in the
affidavit-in-opposition this Court has made an
endeavor to find out how this issue has been dealt
with in the affidavit-in-reply by the petitioner but in
paragraph 18 of the affidavit-in-reply wherein the
statements made in paragraph 13 of the affidavit-
in-opposition have been dealt with does not reveal
disclosure of any facts relating to employment of
the father of the petitioner and exact amount which
he received on his voluntary retirement excepting
formal denial at the first part of the said paragraph
18 relating to the statements made in paragraph 13
of the affidavit-in-opposition.
For effective adjudication of the issue
involved in this writ petition as raised by the
petitioner it would have been incumbent upon the
petitioner to be very specific while dealing with the
statements in paragraph 13 of the affidavit-in-
opposition of the State respondents. In his
affidavit-in-reply he ought to have disclosed service
benefits/terminal benefits which the petitioner's
father received on acceptance of voluntary
retirement by the employer of the father of the
petitioner.
Failure of the petitioner to disclose the
aforesaid details relating to the service benefits
accrued in favour of his father at the time of
voluntary retirement appears to be fatal in
consideration of the nature of relief claimed in the
present writ petition. In stead of simply questioning
the certificate of the Block Development Officer
dated 10th December, 2015 the petitioner could
have been candid before this Court in the matter of
disclosure of service benefits which his father
received due to voluntary retirement. The blanket
challenge thrown to the said certificate of the Block
Development Officer dated 10th December, 2015
pales into insignificance due to failure on the part
of the petitioner to deal with the statements made
by the State respondents in paragraph 13 of the
affidavit-in-opposition.
In above conspectus the exercise made by
the respondent no. 2 while calculating family
income of the petitioner upon taking into
consideration Rs. 60,000/- being the yearly income
of the father of the petitioner does not call for
interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order,
if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
