Mousumi Baskey (Tudu) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7534 Cal

23    14.11.2022
      Ct.15
                                     W.P.A. 4275 of 2017
rkd

                                   Mousumi Baskey (Tudu)
                                            -vs-
                               The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                   Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari,
                   Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak
                                                                ....for the petitioner.
                   Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya,
                   Mr. Suman Dey
                                                                    ....for the State.

                              The matter relates to appointment on

                   compassionate ground as submitted by the learned

                   advocate representing the petitioner upon throwing

                   challenge to the decision of the District Inspector of

                   Schools (S.E.), Purba Bardhaman issued under

                   memo dated 16th December, 2019 whereby prayer

                   of the petitioner for grant of appointment on

                   compassionate ground has been spurned.

                              Mr. Tewari, learned advocate representing

                   the petitioner while questioning the decision of the

                   District     Inspector    of       Schools     (S.E.),    Purba

                   Bardhaman,        being      the   respondent       no.4,    has

submitted that the West Bengal School Service

Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment

to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009

issued under notification dated 9th July, 2009

being no. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 are of 2009.

Therefore while considering the financial hardship

of the applicant seeking appointment on

compassionate ground the respondent authority

was required to refix the income limit in

consideration of upward change of cost of living,

inflation and other relevant facts and

circumstances.

In this regard reliance has been placed on

the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (2019)

3 SCC 653 (State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. -vs-

Shashi Kumar). According to the petitioner in terms

of the observation made by the Apex Court there

has been necessity to periodical refixation of

income limit based on upward change of cost of

living, inflation and other relevant facts, which has

not been done in the present case resulting in

refusal by the respondent no.4 to allow the

application of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground.

Mr. Vaisya, learned Additional Government

Pleader represents the State respondents who has

defended the decision of the respondent no.4

whereby case of the petitioner for appointment on

compassionate ground has been rejected.

In support of such submission Mr. Vaisya

has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex

Court, reported in 2008 Vol.11 SCC 384 (Smt.

Mumtaz Yunus Mulani-vs- State of Maharashtra &

Ors.). Paragraph 11 of the said judgment indicates

a situation where on death of breadwinner of the

family, said family survived for a substantial period

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that

normal rule of appointment need not be ignored in

the matter of filing up the post.

This Court has head the learned advocates

representing the parties and has perused the

decision of the respondent no.4 contained in memo

dated 16th December, 2019 which is the subject

matter of challenge in this writ petition.

It appears that the respondent no.4 has

followed the Schedule V of the West Bengal School

Service Commission (Selection of Persons for

Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff)

Rules, 2009 in determining the financial hardship

of the family of the deceased teacher while deciding

the application made by the petitioner for her

appointment on compassionate ground.

From the said decision, it further appears

that gross salary of Group-D staff at the material

point of time was Rs.11,718/- whereas on applying

the formula as contained in Schedule V to the said

rules of 2009 the authority found family income of

the petitioner was Rs.12,428/-, which is higher

than the gross salary of Group-D staff. On

application of Schedule V of the said rules of 2009,

it appears that the respondent no.4 has rightly

decided the eligibility of the petitioner in getting

appointment on compassionate ground and on

finding the fact that the family income of the

petitioner at the material point of time was higher

than the gross salary of Group-D staff refused to

appointment to petitioner on compassionate

ground. Therefore, the decision of the respondent

no.4 on the anvil of the said rules of 2009 does not

appear to be erroneous.

There is another limb of submission made

on behalf of the petitioner that considering the

gradual rise of cost of living and inflation there is a

need of revisiting the issue of fixation the income

limit upwardly in consideration of the fact that

criteria for determining financial hardship has been

fixed far back in 2009 pursuant to the Government

notification dated 9th July, 2009.

At first blush, such argument advanced on

behalf of the petitioner appears to be appealing but

on perusal of the writ petition it appears there is no

pleading to that extent made by the petitioner and

the scheme promulgated under the Government

Notification dated 9th July, 2009 has not been

questioned by the petitioner.

In above conspectus, this Court does not

find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly

same stands dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this

order, if applied for, be given to the learned

Advocates for the parties on the usual

undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)