Souvik Sinha vs Dvc & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5712 Cal

    22
30.08.2023
   D.Hira
Court No. 12
                              In The High Court At Calcutta
                               Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                                      Appellate Side


                                  FMA 286 of 2019
                                        With
                      CAN 1 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 4821 of 2019)

                                        Souvik Sinha
                                           Versus
                                         DVC & Ors.

                     Mr. Surya Kumar Chattopadhyay,
                     Mr. Satyaranjan Kundu,
                     Mr. Ankit Chatterjee.
                                ... for the appellant

                     Mr. Ranjay De,
                     Mr. B. Banerjee.
                                ... for the DVC



                     The appellant's father died on 9th February, 2003

               while in service in the respondent corporation.           The

appellant's mother made an application for appointment

on compassionate ground. The said application was

registered in the respondent corporation. Serial no. of the

same was 121 at the time of filing of this case. The

respondents informed that the appellant's mother that

her application will be considered when her turn comes.

While so, the scheme of appointment on compassionate

ground was replaced by scheme of payment of lumpsum

amount.

According to the respondent corporation, they

informed appellant's mother repeatedly to opt for

receiving lumpsum amount of Rs.5 lakhs as per existing

scheme. The appellant's mother kept silent and did not

respond. The appellant who was minor at the time of

death of his father, applied for compassionate

appointment on 15th June, 2017 and subsequently filed

writ petition being W.P. No. 542 (W) of 2018.

The respondent corporation opposed the case of

the appellant on various grounds including that the

present scheme is of lumpsum payment in view of

compassionate appointment, being improbable due to the

passage of fourteen years having already been elapsed

after death of the appellant's father.

Learned Judge considering the materials on record

placed before him and the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Jagadish Prasad vs. State of

Bihar reported in 1996 (1) SCC 301 and State of J & K

nd Others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5

SCC 766 has dismissed the writ petition.

Against the said order of dismissal the appellant

has come out with the present appeal.

Both the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and respondents made submissions

extensively. The learned counsel for the appellant relied

on the following unreported judgment in support of his

claim :-

1. The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi College &

Anr. vs. Mrinal Kanti Kumbhakar & Ors.

The learned counsel for the respondent relied on

the following judgments in support of his claim :-

1.State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur

reported in (2007) 9 SCC 571.

2. Arindam Choudhury vs. State of West

Bengal & Ors. reported in 20189 SCC Online

CAL 159.

3. State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari

& Ors. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 219.

4. Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Gouri

Devi reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1080.

5. N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka &

Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617.

6. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & anr.

vs. V. Somyashree reported in (2021) 12 SCC

20.

7. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited 7

Ors. vs. Nirval Singh reported in (2019) 6

SCC 774.

8. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. vs. Dhirjo

Kumar Sengar reported in (2009) 13 SCC

600.

9. Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Ashwini

Kumar Taneja reported in (2004) 7 scc 265.

Heard Mr. Surya Kumar Chattopadhyay, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ranjay De,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents and

perused the entire materials on record.

From the above materials it is seen the appellant's

father died on 9th February, 2003 while in service. The

appellant's mother made application for appointment on

compassionate ground.

According to the appellant, the said request was

not considered till 2017 when appellant became major.

On 5th June, 2017 the appellant made application for

appointment on compassionate ground for himself

instead of his mother. The request for substitution of a

person for compassionate appointment in place of person

who made earlier application cannot be considered due to

passage of time. The appointment on compassionate

ground is a special type of recruitment in deviation of

regular recruitment. The compassionate appointment is

given in order to tied over financial crisis faced by the

family members of the deceased employee who died while

in service. The issue of compassionate appointment was

considered by Hon'ble Apex Court and various High

Courts and it has been repeatedly held that

compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a

matter of right, and also that the compassionate

appointment is not a right of inheritance executable after

passage of considerable time gap. The legal heirs of the

deceased employee are not entitled to appointment on

compassionate ground, as a matter of vested right.

The Hon'ble Apex Court held that legal heirs who

are claiming compassionate appointment has to approach

the Court within a reasonable time period after rejection

of the request of the application for compassionate

appointment or its non-consideration, after filing.

In the present case, mother of the appellant has

applied for compassionate appointment and her name

was registered by the respondent corporation in a queue.

Pending the same, the scheme of appointment on

compassionate ground was replaced by another scheme

of lumpsum payment of Rs.5 lakhs.

According to the respondent corporation, the

lumpsum payment has been increased to Rs.15 lakhs

and several letters have been sent to the mother of the

appellant. The mother of the appellant did not respond

the same.

When the matter is taken up for hearing today,

after elaborate arguments learned counsel for the

appellant, in addition to his arguments, made submission

that appellant will not have any objection if appointment

is given to his mother and also submitted that appellant

will not insist for employment, if the respondent

corporation considered the application for giving

lumpsum payment. Appellant's mother is willing to

receive the lumpsum amount and submitted that by a

letter dated 18th August, 2021 the respondent offered

Rs.15 lakhs granting thirty days time to receive the said

amount to apply for lumpsum amount. The said time

limit may be extended for the mother of the appellant.

In view of the above submission, the mother of the

appellant is permitted to give application under the new

scheme of payment of lumpsum amount in lieu of

compassionate appointment as per the present scheme

within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order and if such application is received, the

respondent corporation is directed to consider the

application and pay the lumpsum amount within three

weeks thereafter.

With the above directions, the appeal is disposed

of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

(V.M. Velumani, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)