Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rubi Roy vs (Ab) The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 March, 2022
Court No. 24 W.P.A. 21085 of 2021
14.03.2022
(Item No. 12)
Rubi Roy
VS
(AB) The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya
...... for the petitioner
The petitioner seeks compassionate appointment.
The father of the petitioner was a Primary School
Teacher, who died in harness on 23rd June, 2006.
Application was made for providing compassionate
appointment within the prescribed period of limitation.
Such application not being considered by the respondent
authority the petitioner was constrained to approach this
Court for relief.
The Court in WP No. 17872(W) of 2012 (Dipti Roy &
Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), by an order
dated 24th July, 2015, disposed of the writ petition by
directing the Chairman, Birbhum District Primary School
Council to consider and decide upon the prayer of the
second writ petitioner within a specified period of time.
In compliance of the direction passed by the Court
Birbhum District Primary School Council passed an order
on 16th October, 2015 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment on the ground that the
condition of the petitioner was not to be taken as in
extreme financial hardship that the family badly needs an
employment.
The petitioner challenged the said impugned order
of rejection by filing a writ petition being AST. 386 of 2017
(Rubi Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). The said writ
petition stood dismissed for default by an order dated 8th
January, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant
writ petition in November, 2019.
The petitioner submits that the order of rejection of
the prayer of the petitioner is bad in law. The circular
which has been relied upon for rejecting the prayer cannot
be made applicable in case of the petitioner.
The petitioner relies upon a judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in FMA 79 of
2005 (Nazrul Islam & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)
reported in (2009)1 CHN 339 in support of her case.
It appears from the documents annexed to the writ
petition that the Court vide order dated 24th July, 2015
directed the respondent authorities to consider the
application made by the petitioner in the year 2008 to be
considered by the Council. Her prayer was considered,
rejected and communicated in the year 2015. The
petitioner challenged the same by filing a subsequent writ
petition in 2017 but thereafter did not take proper steps to
pursue the case. The writ petition stood dismissed for
default in January, 2018. Thereafter in November, 2019
the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Had the petitioner been really aggrieved by the
order of rejection and had she been in real financial need
she ought to have approached the court at once after
getting knowledge of the order in 2015 itself or immediately
thereafter. The petitioner challenged the order of rejection
in 2017, but again failed to diligently proceed with the
same. After dismissal of the writ petition in January 2018,
the present writ application was filed in November 2019.
Not a word has been mentioned in the writ petition
explaining the delay in approaching the court. By the time
the present writ petition was filed nearly four years elapsed
after rejection of her prayer.
The conduct of the petitioner in pursuing her case
raises serious doubts in the mind of the court with regard
to the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner. Had the
petitioner been in financial crisis she ought to have
approached the court earlier and should have persistently
followed her claim.
It is well settled that compassionate appointment
can never be claimed as a matter of right. The same is a
concession. The very object and purpose of granting
compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide
over the sudden financial crisis faced on the death of the
bread winner. The idea is not to give appointment to the
member of the family. Compassionate appointment can be
given only in terms of a scheme and such prayer has to be
dealt with extreme urgency as the livelihood of the family
may be at stake. Delayed approach is fatal.
In the present case, the teacher died in the year
2006. In the year 2022, long sixteen years after the death
of the teacher, the prayer of the heir of the deceased ought
not to be taken up for consideration for providing
appointment on compassionate ground. The very object of
providing appointment on compassionate ground gets
frustrated if such delayed claims made by parties are to be
entertained by the Court.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner in the instant writ petition.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance
of usual legal formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
