Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Kalachand Ghatak And Another vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5341 Cal

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5341 Cal
Judgement Date : 21 August, 2023

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kalachand Ghatak And Another vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 21 August, 2023
                     In the High Court at Calcutta
                    Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                             Appellate Side

The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

                           WPA No. 21887 of 2022

                    Kalachand Ghatak and another
                                  Vs.
                   The State of West Bengal and others

     For the petitioners             :    Mr. R.N. Chakraborty

     Hearing concluded on            :    14.08.2023

     Judgment on                     :    21.08.2023



     Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:-



1.   The petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of Late

     Sachipati Ghatak. The petitioner no.1 is the son and the petitioner

     no.2 is the daughter of the said deceased.      Late Sachipati died on

     December 28, 1981.      It is alleged that during his lifetime, the said

     deceased was an employee, being an ambulance driver of the Katwa

     Sub-Divisional Hospital and had died in harness, leaving behind his

     wife and children.    The wife of Late Sachipati also met her demise

     subsequently, leaving the petitioners as her only heirs.

2.   In the year 1983, the petitioners' mother made an application to the

     competent authority seeking employment of her son, the petitioner

     no.1, on compassionate ground. The Sub-Divisional Medical Officer,

     Katwa, forwarded the application to the Chief Medical Officer of

     Health, Burdwan. Thereafter, the matter went before several forums
                                       2


     and ultimately, pursuant to a direction of a Division Bench of this

     Court, was remanded to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal,

     which directed the service book of the deceased to be reconstructed.

     Ultimately, however, the matter went up to the Lokayukta, West

     Bengal before whom it was disclosed by the respondent-Authorities

that nothing had been produced by the petitioners to indicate the

continuance of service of Late Sachipati after the year 1965, nor was

any information available in such regard in any of the relevant offices

where he had worked according to the petitioners.

3. Being thus aggrieved and seeking disbursal of the pensionary/retiral

benefits available to the said ex-employee, including compassionate

appointment, and interest on such amount, the present writ petition

has been filed.

4. Upon hearing the learned advocate for the petitioners, it is evident

that the first such application, for compassionate appointment on the

demise of Late Sachipati on December 28, 1981, was made in the year

1983.

5. The matter was taken up by the concerned authorities. In a

communication dated August 16, 1983 by the Sub-Divisional Medical

Officer, Katwa SD Hospital to the Chief Medical Officer of Health

(CMOH), Burdwan, it was informed that Late Sachipati Ghatak had

worked in the said hospital up to May 18, 1965 as per the records

available in the office and was paid salary up to that date, when he

was on deputation at the Asansol LM Hospital. However, no other

records were available in the office.

6. The matter went before different forums over the next several years,

but nothing could be found from the records of the respondent-

Authorities to substantiate the continuance of service of Late

Sachipati after May 18, 1965. At the same time, no document has

been produced by the respondent-Authorities to indicate that Late

Sachipati was ever suspended, retrenched or retired from service.

7. Unfortunately, the petitioners also could not produce any document

whatsoever to substantiate their claim that Late Sachipati died in

harness in December, 1981,

8. Initially, the endeavour on the part of the mother (since deceased) of

the petitioners was to seek compassionate appointment of her son, the

petitioner no.1.

9. To such end, the CMOH, Burdwan wrote to the Director of Health

Services in the year 1984, forwarding for favour and for taking

necessary action such request for compassionate appointment,

wherein it was mentioned that Late Sachipati Ghatak was an

ambulance driver.

10. The same was acted upon and the authorities requested comments on

several scores. One of the queries in such communication dated

August 2, 1984, annexed at page 18 of the writ petition, was whether

the deceased Late Sachipati Ghatak, ex-ambulance driver, Katwa SD

Hospital, died in harness. The PA to the Director, Health Service

replied to such query of the CMOH, Burdwan, in the positive. Thus,

as on August 2, 1984, it is clear from the stand taken by the Director

of Health Services that Late Sachipati, an ex-ambulance driver of the

Katwa SD Hospital, had died in harness.

11. The said piece of evidence is one of the important links in the chain in

the present matter, establishing that Late Sachipati died in harness.

12. A Three-Men Enquiry Committee had been formed to consider the

case of the petitioners as well as another employee. The Special

Officer (Pension), Directorate of Health Services, West Bengal also

wrote to the Superintendent, Katwa Sub-Divisional Hospital on April

22, 2015, inviting a reference to the disbursal of pensionary benefits

of Late Sachipati, asking the Superintendent to furnish the latest

development regarding such disbursal of pensionary benefits. In a

communication by the Joint Director of Health Services (Personnel),

West Bengal dated May 28, 2015, annexed at page 27, written to the

Member Secretary, West Bengal Commission for Women, who also

took up the issue at the behest of petitioner no.2 and her mother, it

was indicated that Late Sachipati was an ex-employee and had died in

harness but the request of compassionate appointment was rejected

on the ground of late submission of prayer.

13. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated November

26, 2018, also rejected the prayer for compassionate appointment on

the ground of delay, by relying on Section 21 of the Administrative

Tribunal Act, 1985, but did not take into account the prayer for

disbursal of retiral benefits. The order was challenged before a

Division Bench of this Court in WPST 5 of 2019, which was decided on

February 25, 2019, inter alia remanding the matter to the Tribunal on

the issue of the release of death-cum-retiral benefits.

14. By a subsequent order dated September 32, 2019, the Tribunal

observed that since there is dearth of records and as it appears from

the reply that service book could not be reconstructed due to non-

availability of instructions from higher authority, the application was

disposed of by directing the CMOH, Burdwan to first decide, by

passing an order regarding the identity of the applicants and length of

service of the deceased Government Employee Sachipati Ghatak, after

verifying the records. If he was satisfied about the identity of the

applicant and confirmed the length of service, he was to immediately

seek necessary orders for reconstruction of the service book and the

Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health Services was to

issue necessary orders for reconstruction, after the matter regarding

grant of pensionary and/or retiral benefits being considered by the

CMOH as per the said directions.

15. However, even thereafter, nothing happened. Ultimately, the matter

was taken to the Lokayukta who, vide order dated December 29,

2021, adjourned the hearing and directed the Secretary, Finance

Department, Government of West Bengal to expedite the matter

considering that the case is long pending and there is an order of the

Tribunal as far back as in the year 2019.

16. In short, as of today, the only sanguine factor in the case is that Late

Sachipati had worked as an ambulance driver in the Katwa SD

Hospital at Burdwan, having been deputed at Asansol LM Hospital, up

to May 18, 1965, till when he was paid salary.

17. It is also sanguine, as established by his death certificate, that Late

Sachipati died on December 28, 1981 which, according to the

petitioners, is within the tenure of his normal service period.

18. The doubt arises as to whether Sachipati's service continued after May

18, 1965 till his demise in December, 1981.

19. There are two indicators in the materials on record which favour the

petitioners' claim that Sachipati's service had continued and he had

died in harness. The first is the communication by the Director,

Department of Health on August 2, 1984 to the CMOH, Burdwan,

which indicated that the deceased Sachipati, an ex-ambulance driver

of the Katwa SD Hospital, had, indeed, died in harness (Annexure P-3

at page 18 of the writ petition). Secondly, in a reply to the Member

Secretary of the West Bengal Women's' Commission, the Joint Director

of Health Services (Personnel) West Bengal, wrote on May 28, 2015

that the compassionate appointment prayer of the petitioners was

rejected in view of the delay in filing the same, in the same breath

observing that Late Sachipati was an ex-employee who died in harness

on December 28, 1981.

20. The petitioners, who were quite young at the relevant juncture when

Sachipati was in service and even when he met his demise, cannot be

expected to be in custody of relevant papers regarding the service of

Sachipati.

21. Insofar as the burden of proof is concerned, it is the employer of

Sachipati who ought to have special knowledge regarding Sachipati's

continuance in service with the said employer or otherwise. Section

106 of the Evidence Act, 1982 provides that when any fact is specially

within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is

upon him.

22. In the present case, special knowledge lies with the employer, since

the matter concerns service of an employee. The heirs of the deceased

employee are not expected to carry documents regarding such service.

The inability of the employer to produce service records all along, at

least since 1983, cannot be justified in any manner.

23. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden lies on the

employer, having special knowledge, to produce such documents, in

the absence of which adverse inference may very well be drawn

against the employer.

24. Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides that the Court may presume

the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened,

regard being had to the common course of natural events, human

conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts

of the particular case. Illustration (d) under Section 114 is, that a

thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence

within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of

things usually cease to exist, is still in existence.

25. Sachipati's service was admittedly continuing at least till May 18,

1965. In normal course of things, the said service would continue to

subsist till his demise in 1981. Since it is the employer who insists

that the same ceased within a period shorter than that, the burden

lies on the employers to establish that Sachipati was terminated or

retrenched or left service prior to his demise.

26. In the present case, such proof is entirely absent and the respondent-

Authorities seek to wash off their hands on the flimsy pretext that the

relevant records were not available. The ground of delay cannot be a

relevant factor, since a similar stand has been taken by the employer

from 1983, when the poor wife of the deceased employee first started

the family marathon from pillar to post.

27. Such legacy is still being continued, since the petitioners have been

fighting to the hilt, first to get compassionate appointment and then to

get disbursal of the pensionary/retiral benefits on the death of their

father, Late Sachipati.

28. In the context of the above discussions, it was for the respondent-

Authorities to produce the records either to show that Sachipati's

service was continuing or that the same was terminated prior to its

natural tenure. Having failed to do so, adverse inference has to be

drawn against the respondent-Authorities. Accordingly, it is

presumed that if the records were produced, the same would operate

to the detriment of the employer's interest.

29. Hence, in the absence of any material to show that late Sachipati was

ever suspended, retrenched, dismissed or retired from service before

his death, the petitioners are definitely entitled to the entire

pensionary/retiral benefits due on the demise of their father, Late

Sachipati Ghatak, the ex-employee and ambulance driver with the

Katwa SD Hospital, Burdwan on his demise on December 28, 1981.

30. Accordingly, WPA No.21887 of 2022 is allowed on contest, directing

the respondent no.7, the Special Officer (Pension) Government of West

Bengal, to disburse the entire retiral/pensionary benefits of Late

Sachipati Ghatak, an ex-employee of the Katwa Sub-Divisional

Hospital, Paschim Burdwan, calculating such pensionary benefits by

applying the appropriate scales for the entire period till the demise of

Late Sachipati on December 28, 1981. Such disbursal shall be

effected within two months from the date of communication of this

order to the respondent no.7.

31. It ought to be recorded here that interest is not being awarded on

such amount, since I cannot find any patent mala fides on the part of

the respondents, as it genuinely appears that the respondents have,

over a period of time, made efforts to trace out the records of service of

late Sachipati Ghatak and there was a bona fide doubt all along as to

the entitlement of the petitioners to the retiral/death benefits of the

said employee.

32. The respondent-Authorities are also directed to consider as to whether

either of the petitioners is entitled to family pension on the demise of

Late Sachipati on December 28, 1981. Upon deciding on such issue,

a communication in that regard shall be made to the petitioners by

the respondent-Authorities, within one month from date.

33. It will be open to the petitioners, if aggrieved by such decision, to

prefer a further challenge before the appropriate forum or by way of a

properly constituted writ petition before this Court.

34. There will be no order as to costs.

35. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, be issued to the parties

upon compliance of due formalities.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter