Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kalyani Paul & Ors vs The District General on 4 May, 2023
S/L 123
04.05.2023
Court. No. 12
Sourav
WPA 19826 of 2021
Kalyani Paul & Ors.
Vs.
The District General, CISF & Ors.
Mr. Rejaul Alam
Mr. S. M. Hassan
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajoy Choubey
Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy
... for the respondents.
1. Both the writ petitioners and the respondents are
represented by their respective learned advocates.
2. The present writ petition is now taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned advocate for the writ petitioners and
learned advocate for the respondents in favour of and
against the writ petition.
4. The instant writ petition is now taken up for passing
appropriate order.
5. By filing the instant writ petition as filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ
petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of
mandamus upon the respondents directing them not
to give effect upon their letters dated 15.02.2012 and
18.12.2020 with a further prayer for issuance writ of
mandamus against the respondents to provide
employment on compassionate ground in favour of
the writ petitioner no. 2.
6. Mr. Alam, learned advocate for the writ petitioner at
the very outset draws attention of this Court to the
Annexure P.1 of the instant writ petition wherefrom it
reveals that the predecessor-in-interest of the present
writ petitioner namely; Mihir Chandra Paul died on
04.07.2010. Attention of this Court is also drawn to
Page No. 23 of the writ petition wherefrom it reveals
further that the date of birth of the writ petitioner no.
2 is 04.07.2010. Drawing attention to Annexure P-6
and Annexure P-7, it has been contended on behalf of
the writ petitioners that by issuing the said two
letters, the respondent authorities rejected the
application of the writ petitioner no. 2 on various
grounds out of which one ground is non-approval of
age relaxation of 4 years 11 months 19 days in respect
of writ petitioner no. 2. It is contended on behalf of
the writ petitioners that considering the age of the
writ petitioner and also considering the fact that the
prayer for compassionate appointment was
submitted with the respondent authorities within
time, the ground of refusal is unreasonable and it has
got no logic at all. It is contended on behalf of the
writ petitioners that the instant writ petition may be
allowed by directing the respondents to issue
compassionate appointment in favour of the writ
petitioner no. 2.
7. Per contra, Mr. Choubey, learned advocate for the
respondent authorities also places his reliance upon
Annexure P-6 to the writ petition. Attention of this
Court is also drawn to the Clause E (iii) i.e., Duties of
Boards on the subject of instructions regarding
appointment on compassionate grounds which has
been issued by Ministry of Home Affairs vide
Notification/Memo No. E-32011(1)/1/05/RCCH/785
C.I.S.F. Circular No. 21/2005/R & S dated
14.06.2005 which has been marked as Annexure R-1
of the affidavit-in-opposition.
8. It is contended by Mr. Choubey that the Clause E (iii)
i.e. Duties of Boards reads as under:-
"(iii) Relaxation in upper age limit
may be recommended up to 02
years."
9. It is further contended by Mr. Choubey, that when
the present writ petitioners have made prayer for
appointment of compassionate ground for the
appointment of the writ petitioner no. 3, it is found
that his age is above the permitted relaxation age of
two years and he is having other requisite
disqualifications for which the respondent authorities
declined to grant compassionate appointment to
respondent no. 3 which is evident from the copy of
the letter dated 15.02.2012 being Annexure P-6 to the
writ petition. It is further argued by Mr. Choubey,
that when the writ petitioners have prayed for
compassionate appointment of the present writ
petitioner no. 3, it has been noticed by the
respondent authorities that the writ petitioner no. 2
and writ petitioner no. 3 are twin brothers and thus
on the self-same ground, the prayer for appointment
of writ petitioner no. 3 has rightly been rejected by
the respondent authorities by issuing the impugned
letter dated 07.03.2012.
10. It is further argued by Mr. Choubey that there was
inordinate delay in making prayer for compassionate
appointment for writ petitioner no. 3 for which the
respondent authorities are also justified in issuing
the letter impugned dated 07.03.2012.
11. Mr. Choubey, learned advocate for the respondent
authorities in support of his contention places
reliance upon the following three
reported/unreported decisions:
(i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors., Anil Malik Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138.
(ii) Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Anil
Badyakar & Ors. reported in (2009) 13 SCC
112.
(iii) Judgment passed in WPA 22088 of 2022
(Tarun Dey Vs. The Union of India & Ors.)
passed onn 14.11.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Hon'ble Court.
12. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before
this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for
both the sides, it appears to this Court that there lies
no dispute that the present writ petitioner no. 2 and
present writ petitioner no. 3 are twin brothers and
they are the sons of late Mihir Chandra Paul.
13. On perusal of the impugned letter dated 15.02.2012,
it reveals to this Court that the respondent
authorities rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner
no. 2 for his compassionate appointment on many
grounds out of which one ground is that his case of
compassionate appointment cannot be considered on
account of his over age which is not permitted for
relaxation in view of Clause E (iii) of the Memo dated
14.06.2005 where it has been specifically stated that
in case of compassionate appointment relaxation in
upper age limit may be recommended upto two years.
14. In considered view of this Court since present writ
petitioner no. 3 and writ petitioner no. 2 are twin
brothers, the respondent authorities are very much
justified in rejecting the claim of the present writ
petitioner no. 3 on the self-same ground i.e., on the
ground of over age by which they have rejected the
prayer of the writ petitioner no. 2 for his
compassionate appointment.
15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this
Court thus finds no merit in the instant writ petition
and accordingly, the instant writ petition being WPA
19826 of 2021 is dismissed.
16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance
of all the formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
