Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suraj Routh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
WP.ST 110 of 2023
Suraj Routh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Syed Shamsul Arefin
Miss Kaniz Kulsum
For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP
Ms. Tuli Sinha
Heard on : August 4, 2023
Judgment on : August 4, 2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
The writ petition is directed against an order dated June 21,
2023 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in
OA 461 of 2022.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal refused to grant relief
of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that,
the deceased employee died-in-harness on October 11, 2012.
The mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment on October 18, 2012. Thereafter, the mother of
the petitioner withdrew the application for compassionate
appointment and the petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment on April 5, 2016. He draws the attention of the
Court to the report of the enquiry committee formed for the
purpose of considering the application for compassionate
appointment. He submits that, the enquiry committee found
that the family of the deceased employee was in financial
distress. Despite such recommendation, the authorities
rejected the application for compassionate appointment by a
writing dated June 1, 2022.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits
that, assailing the order of rejection dated June 1, 2022, an
original application being OA 461 of 2022 was filed before
the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal wherein, the
impugned order was passed.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner relies
upon the notification bearing No.26-Emp. dated March 1,
2016 and submits that, notification bearing No.251-Emp
dated December 3, 2013 was clarified. He refers to the
clarification issued with regard to belated request for
compassionate appointment. He submits that, the present
application for compassionate appointment cannot be
construed to be belated.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits
that, the mother of the writ petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on October 18, 2012. The writ
petitioner was an adult on the date of death of the deceased
employee. The writ petitioner, however, did not apply for
compassionate appointment within the time period
prescribed by the notification No.251-Emp dated December
3, 2013. Therefore, the present application for
compassionate appointment should be construed to be
belated without any plausible explanation for the same being
given. Consequently, according to him, the authorities
correctly rejected the application for compassionate
appointment. The Tribunal correctly concurred the view
expressed by the authority in rejecting the prayer for
compassionate appointment.
7. As noted above, the employee died-in-harness on October
11, 2012. Applicability of notification no.251-Emp dated
December 3, 2013 governing the consideration of an
application for compassionate appointment in respect of
such deceased employee is not being disputed by the parties
before us.
8. The mother of the writ petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment on October 18, 2012. Therefore, the Tribunal
and the authority when they arrived at a finding that there
was no need for financial assistance, cannot be said to be
correct. Moreover, the enquiry committee formed by the
authorities themselves recommended by the writing dated
June 28, 2016 that, the family of the deceased was facing
difficulties in day-to-day life out of the financial problem.
9. The twin criteria, namely, financial distress of the family of
the deceased employee and service condition of the deceased
employee permitting grant of compassionate appointment
stand fulfilled. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the issue is whether the application for compassionate
appointment of the writ petitioner stands defeated by reason
of delay.
10. Notification no.251-Emp dated December 3, 2013 prescribes
a time period for the purpose of making an application for
compassionate appointment. The time period prescribed by
the notification bearing no.251-Emp dated December 3,
2013 was clarified by the notification bearing No.26-Emp.
dated March 1, 2016. In respect of belated request, the
notification bearing no.26-Emp. dated March 1, 2016
clarifies the notification dated December 3, 2013 in the
manner following :
"BELATED REQUESTS:-
In exceptional cases such as (i) death during
action (ii) where none in family is eligible etc.,
departments can consider requests for
compassionate appointment even where the death
or retirement on medical grounds of a Govt.
servant took place upto five years ago. While
considering such belated request the 3 member
screening-cum-enquiry committee should,
however, keep in view that the concept of
compassionate appointment is largely related to
the need for immediate assistance to the family of
the Govt. Servant in order to relieve it from
economic distress. The very fact that the family
has been able to manage somehow all these years
should normally be taken as adequate proof that
the family had some dependable means of
subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases
could call for a great deal of circumspection at all
levels. The dependent member must invariably
attain the minimum age of appointment at the
time of consideration."
11. Therefore, the time period prescribed by the notification
no.251-Emp dated December 3, 2013 is not inflexible. A
belated request can be entertained subject to fulfilment of
various criteria prescribed therein.
12. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the
request for compassionate appointment was defeated by
delay. There was a request for compassionate appointment
on October 18, 2012. Moreover, a second application for
compassionate appointment was made on April 5, 2016 by
the writ petitioner on the ground that the mother of the writ
petitioner who applied on October 18, 2012 was facing
health issues. An enquiry committee was formed where, the
enquiry committee found that the family of the deceased
employee was facing financial difficulties. This finding is as
late as in 2016.
13. In such circumstances, we set aside the order of rejection of
the authority dated June 1, 2022 as well as the impugned
order of the Tribunal dated June 21, 2023.
14. We direct the authorities to grant compassionate
appointment to the writ petitioner within a period of
fortnight from date.
15. WP.ST 110 of 2023 is disposed of without any order as to
costs.
(Debangsu Basak,J.)
16. I Agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
(AD)
