(Jayashree Tewary vs Union Of India & Ors.)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5066 Cal

    176
    M/L
16.08.2023
 Ct. No. 11
    rrc
                                 MAT 284 of 2021
                                       with
                               IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
                                       with
                               IA No. CAN 2 of 2021
                   (Jayashree Tewary Vs. Union of India & Ors.)


                 Mr. Shuvra Prakash Lahiri
                 Mr. Kunal Ganguly
                 Ms. Jenifar Alam Megha
                                      ..... For the appellant

                 Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh
                                      ..... For the respondents

Re: CAN 1 of 2021

Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and upon considering the averments

made in the application for condonation of delay, we are

satisfied with the explanation given towards the delay in

preferring the present appeal.

In view thereof, the delay in preferring the appeal is

condoned and the application being CAN 1 of 2021 is

disposed of.

Re: MAT 284 of 2021 with CAN 2 of 2021

With the consent of the parties, the appeal and the

stay application being CAN 2 of 2021 are taken up for

final hearing.

The present appeal has been preferred challenging

the order dated 12th January, 2021 passed by the

learned single Judge in a writ petition being WPA 11283

of 2020. The subject matter of challenge in the writ

petition was an order dated 8th September, 2020 by

which the writ petitioner's application for grant of

compassionate appointment was rejected.

Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate appearing for the writ

petitioner/appellant submits that the appellant's father

was suffering from the dreaded disease of cancer to

which he ultimately succumbed on 19th November, 2019.

The appellant, though married, was totally dependent

upon the deceased's income and she along with her

unemployed husband were residing with the deceased.

Due to the sudden loss of the sole bread earner, the

appellant's mother submitted an application in the

prescribed proforma for grant of compassionate

appointment in favour of the appellant. A declaration

along with an application seeking compassionate

appointment was also submitted by the appellant.

Mr. Lahiri argues that the order impugned would

reveal that the appellant's claim was primarily rejected

on the ground that the deceased family was not suffering

from any financial stringency as the deceased's widow

had received a substantial amount towards terminal

benefits of the deceased. The receipt of terminal benefits

cannot be a ground for rejection of a claim towards

compassionate appointment. In support of such

contention, reliance has been placed upon the

recruitment rules pertaining to compassionate amount,

as annexed at page - 50 of the stay application.

As regards the ground that the deceased's son is

already employed, Mr. Lahiri submits that such fact has

not been suppressed by the appellant. However, the son

was not residing with his mother and he does not look

after the needs of the appellant. In view thereof, the

family was suffering from extreme financial hardship.

Such fact has not been taken into consideration while

rejecting the appellant's claim.

Mr. Lahiri further argues that the learned Single

Judge glossed over the issues, as argued by the appellant

and returned no finding on the said issues and such

infirmity on the fact of the records warrants interference

in appeal.

Per contra, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for

the respondents submits that the appellant's claim was

rejected since the deceased's family was not suffering

from acute financial distress. The widow was residing in

her own house and her son was employed under the

West Bengal police. The declaration of the appellant at

page - 38 of the stay application would reveal that the

appellant's brother, who was employed, was residing

along with his mother in the same premises.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the materials on

record.

A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the

learned Single Judge rejected the appellant's claim

placing reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of

State Bank of India Vs. Surya Narain Tripathi, reported in

2014 (15) SCC 739 wherein it has inter alia been

observed that 'if an employer points out that the financial

arrangement made for the family subsequent to the death

of the employee is adequate, the members of the family

cannot insist that one of them ought to be provided a

comparable appointment'. The learned Judge took into

consideration the fact that the deceased's son was

already employed and arrived at a finding that the family

of the deceased employee was not in penury.

In the writ petition, there is no specific pleading as

regards the date on which the appellant's brother got

employment and as to whether he is residing separately.

The object of compassionate appointment is to

protect the dependents of the deceased and to mitigate

the hardships of the family members. The order

impugned in the writ petition reveals that the appellant's

prayer was turned down not on the sole ground that the

terminal benefits were received by the widow. The order

records that the appellant's father expired only about 13

months prior to normal superannuation and that his

widow was having her own house and her son was also

in Government employment. The said order is also not

contrary to the recruitment rules, upon which reliance

has been placed on behalf of the appellant.

The learned Single Judge, upon dealing with all the

factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not

find any error in the same. The impugned order also

does not suffer from any substantial failure of justice or

any manifest injustice warranting interference in the

present appeal.

Accordingly, no interference is called for in the

present appeal.

The appeal being MAT 284 of 2021 and the

connected application being CAN 2 of 2021 are,

accordingly, dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for,

be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)