Saraswati Saha vs West Bengal State Electricity
2023 Latest Caselaw 4524 Cal

28.07.2023
 rpan/ 17
                          WPA 883 of 2021
                           Saraswati Saha
                              - Versus -
                   West Bengal State Electricity
                   Distribution Co. Ltd. & Others

              Mr. Neil Basu,
              Mr. Rahul Gupta
                          ... for the Petitioner.

              Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley
                          ... for the Respondents.

Questioning the defensibility of the reasoned

order passed by the General Manager, (HR&A),

WBSEDCL which was communicated to the petitioner

under a Memo vide. dated 18th November, 2020, this

writ petition has been preferred.

The fact, as unfurled in the writ petition, is that

the father of the writ petitioner, who happened to be

an employee of the respondent no.1 at its customer

care centre, Rampurhat, Birbhum, died in harness on

21st November, 2011. The petitioner's mother, being

widow of the employee wrote two letters dated

11.01.2012 and 30.05.2016 to the competent

authority seeking compassionate appointment of the

petitioner. As those letters were not considered, the

petitioner made a further representation to the

authority concerned through her learned advocate on

27th June, 2018 but no step has been taken to favour

the petitioner with compassionate appointment.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner was constrained to

approach this Court by taking out a writ petition,

being W.P. No.13650 (W) of 2018. However, during

pendency of the writ petition, a Memo. dated 7 th

August, 2008 was issued rejecting the petitioner's

prayer for compassionate appointment . The Petitioner

assailed the Memo.vide. dated 7th August, 2018, in an

another writ petition being W.P. No.25640 of 2018.

By an order dated 9th October, 2020, a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court quashed the order dated 7th

August, 2018 and directed the authority concerned to

grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and

to pass a reasoned order on the issue keeping in mind

the ratio laid down in the case of The State of West

Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnima Das & Ors., reported in

(2017) 4 CHN 362.

In deference to the order dated 9 th October, 2020

passed in W. P. No.25640 of 2018 an opportunity of

hearing was afforded to the petitioner and a reasoned

order was passed on 18 th November, 2020 and that

reasoned order has been impugned in this writ

petition.

Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the authority concerned has

passed the order impugned on the basis of some

presumption and assumption. Placing reliance upon

the judgment delivered by a larger Bench of this court

in case of The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnima

Das & Ors. (supra) he submits that the larger Bench

of this Court has decided the issue that the married

daughter is entitled to get appointment on

compassionate ground. He submits that the said

order of the larger Bench was challenged in a Special

Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India but the SLP was dismissed.

According to Mr. Basu, the order passed by the

authority concerned should be set aside and a

direction should be given upon the authority

concerned to reconsider the case of appointment of

the petitioner on compassionate ground.

Per contra, Mr. Koley, learned advocate

appearing for the respondents strenuously contends

that to get an appointment on compassionate ground

a married daughter of the deceased employee is to

prove that she was and is dependent upon the

deceased employee. In support of his such contention,

he also laid immense emphasis on the judgment

delivered in case of The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Vs. Purnima Das & Ors. (supra). He submits that

during course of hearing before the authority

concerned the petitioner by making a written

declaration admitted that she has been leading a

peaceful conjugal life with her husband and she has

been living in her matrimonial house and he asserts

that the petitioner was not at all dependent upon the

deceased employee and hence, for this reason, the

authority concerned has rightly turned down the

petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment.

He submits that if the petitioner is given appointment,

the scheme and / or object of giving compassionate

appointment will be frustrated.

Heard the learned advocates. Perused the

materials on record.

During course of hearing before the authority

concerned, it came out that the petitioner knotted

matrimonial chord with her husband in 1998 and

since the date of her marriage she started living in her

matrimonial house. By placing one written

declaration, she stated that she has been leading her

nuptial life with her husband peacefully. The

deceased employee died leaving behind his widow, a

son and a married daughter, the petitioner. The

widow has been drawing family pension, the son of

the deceased, namely, Babul Saha is employed as a

Nirman Sahayak under the Government of West

Bengal and he drew his gross salary of Rs.24,460/- as

on 25th May, 2012 and family of the deceased has

received all terminal benefits including death gratuity.

The writ petitioner happens to be the married

daughter of the deceased employee. She is still leading

a happy married life with her husband in her

matrimonial house. Her husband is owner of one

country liquor shop but subsequently, to secure the

job she made a mere stray statement that her brother-

in-law snatched away such shop from her husband

and now, her husband has been earning his livelihood

by rendering his service as a cook in a lodge but no

document has been produced to substantiate such

claim.

The purpose and object to introduce the scheme

of compassionate appointment is to save the family

which has suddenly plunged into penury due to

sudden demise of a government employee, who was

the sole bread earner of family. It is worthwhile to

note that as a rule, appointment in public services

should be made strictly on the basis of open

advertisement. Appointment on compassion ground is

not the rule but an exception and such exception is

carved out only when an employee dies in harness

leaving his family in extreme financial hardship and

without any means of livelihood. In such case, out of

pure humanitarian consideration taking into

consideration the fact that unless some source of

livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to

make both ends meet. Employment on compassionate

ground is given to one of the dependents of the

deceased who is otherwise eligible for such

employment. The mere death of an employee in

harness does not entitle his family to such source of

livelihood.

The proposition of law expounded in the

judgment of The State of West Bengal -vs- Purnima

Das & Ors. (supra) is that the married daughter who

is not looked after by her husband and who has been

forced to take shelter in her parental/maternal home

and survives on benevolence showered by her

father/mother can get the benefit of compassionate

appointment.

There are catena of decisions on the proposition

that no aspirant has a right to compassionate

appointment. It is not right to property. It is not that

as her father died in harness, by way of inheritance,

she has acquired a right to be appointed on

compassionate ground. In a society where many

deserved and eligible candidates roam around the

office to office, institution to institution to find a job to

manage two square meals for their family, it would be

iniquitous and/or misplaced sympathy for the court

of equity to direct the respondents to favour the

petitioner with compassionate appointment.

Taking stock of the factual situations, resume of

chronological events and the above exposition of law

on the issue, I have no qualm to hold that the

petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate

appointment and the authority concerned did not fell

in error in negating the petitioner's claim for such

appointment and it is quite vivid and luminescent

that the authority concerned has passed reasoned

order. Consequently, no interference is called for in

the writ petition. As a result, the writ petition is

dismissed, however, without any order as to the costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon

compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)