Amrita Roy Bhattacharjee vs West Bengal State Electricity ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2966 Cal

   98.
27.4.2023
   S.D.

                                   W.P.A. 960 of 2023

                              Amrita Roy Bhattacharjee
                                          Vs.
                       West Bengal State Electricity Distribution
                              Company Limited & Ors.

                  Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya
                  Ms. Anita Shaw
                  Ms. Taniya Khatun
                                                    ..For the Petitioner
                  Mr. Srijan Nayek
                  Ms. Rituparna Maitra
                                            ...For the W.B.S.E.D.C.L.

                  The petitioner's father was an employee of West Bengal

            State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL).

            He died-in-harness on November 11, 2009.       The petitioner

            approached WBSEDCL for compassionate appointment being

            a married daughter of the deceased employee. Since the said

            prayer was rejected, the first writ petition being W.P. 23629

            (W) of 2012 was filed before this Hon'ble Court. The said writ

            petition was disposed of with an order for the respondents to

pass a reasoned order and in compliance to the order of this

Hon'ble Court, a reasoned order was passed on April 30, 2013

rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment. Second

writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court being W.P.

23170 (W) of 2013 is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble

Court.

Mr. Bhttacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner submits that a Special Bench of this Hon'ble

Court on September 13, 2017 in F.M.A. 1277 of 2015 (State of

West Bengal vs. Purnima Das) has struck down the adjective

'unmarried' before the word 'daughter' being violative of the

Constitution of India. It was held in the said judgment that a

daughter who was married on the date of death of a

Government employee while in service must succeed in her

claim for compassionate appointment in the event she was

entirely dependent on the earnings of her father/mother

(Government employee) on the date of death of his/her

parents.

Relying upon that judgment, the petitioner made a

prayer for compassionate appointment on October 17, 2022.

The said prayer was rejected on November 21, 2022 on the

ground that the prevailing rules of the Recruitment Policy,

2010 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The

petitioner again made a prayer on November 30, 2022. The

said prayer was again turned down on December 27, 2022 and

it was notified her that no further prayer/reference would be

entertained in that regard.

Mr. Nayek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

WBSEDCL submits that the petitioner's prayer has to be

considered in accordance with the office order dated April 4,

2008. Under such office order, unmarried daughters were not

eligible for being considered for compassionate appointment.

The judgment of Purnima Das (supra) has been pronounced

in 2017 and cannot be held to be operated retrospectively.

Furthermore, the petitioner's prayer for compassionate

appointment by setting aside of the impugned order passed in

April 2013 is still pending adjudication. The petitioner has

filed the present writ petition on a selfsame cause of action.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and the

materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that the

applicable Policy for compassionate appointment is the Policy

stipulated by the office order dated April 4, 2008. The

applicable Policy is the Policy that was prevalent on the date

of death of the deceased employee on November 11, 2009.

Under the said Policy, the unmarried daughters were not

eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment since

they did not come within the purview of the term dependant.

The said view has been reiterated time and again by the Apex

Court. Beneficial references can be made to the decisions

reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 (N.C. Santosh vs. State of

Karnataka & Ors.) and (2020) 10 SCC 496 (State of Madhya

Pradesh & Ors. vs. Amit Shrivas) where it has been re-

iterated that the applicable policy is the policy at the time of

death of the deceased employee.

The writ petitioner in the present writ petition has

sought to rely on a Full Bench judgment passed in 2017. Based

on a judgment passed in 2017, the writ petitioner has made a

prayer in 2022 before WBSEDCL for compassionate

appointment. As such, there is a delay of at least 5 years in

making a prayer before the employer, WBSEDCL even it it is

assumed that the cause of action in 2013's writ petition is

different from the present writ petition.

The objective for grant of compassionate appointment

is to help a bereaved family in tiding over the immediate

financial crisis that may have arisen due to the sudden death

of the breadwinner of the family. It is to provide immediate

succour to the bereaved family. An appointment on

compassionate ground is not a matter of right. Since the

applicable Policy that was dated April 2008 was applicable at

the time of death of the petitioner's father, the employer,

WBSEDCL cannot be pulled up for committing any perversity

in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for the said

appointment on October 17, 2022 or November 21, 2022. The

Employer may have wrongly described the policy as 2010's

Recruitment policy but the effect of the order would have been

the same whether it was 2008's policy or 2010's policy as the

'eligibility' criterion of the married daughter to be considered

for compassionate appointment remained unchanged in both

the policies. This Court cannot adjudicate the

propriety/validity of the order dated April 30, 2013 since the

same is admittedly pending adjudication in W.P.A. 23170 (W)

of 2013.

The death of the petitioner's father occurred on

November 10, 2009. After 14 years from the date of death of

the petitioner's father, her prayer for compassionate

appointment cannot be directed to be considered by the

respondent authorities. Also the fact that the petitioner has

filed the present writ petition in 2022 relying on a special

Bench's judgment passed in 2017 in the matter of

compassionate appointment cannot be lost sight of.

With the directions aforesaid, W.P.A. 960 of 2023 is

dismissed.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

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

formalities.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)