Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Raja Sen vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 May, 2023
07. 11.05.2023
Court No.6
Tanmoy Ghosh
MAT 1021 of 2022
Raja Sen
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
IA No: CAN/1/2023
With
IA No: CAN/2/2023
Mr. Avisek Prasad, Adv.,
Mr. Sougata Mitra, Adv.,
Mr. Rameswar Sinha, Adv.,
Ms. Ankita Dey, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today, be kept with
the records.
Although we are not fully satisfied as to whether or
not service has in fact been effected on the State, in view of
the nature of the order that we propose to pass, we do not
wish to defer hearing of this matter.
In Re: IA No: CAN/1/2023
This is an application for condonation of delay of fifty
four (54) days in filing the appeal, as noted by the Stamp
Reporter. Causes shown being sufficient, the delay is
condoned. The application being IA No: CAN/1/2023 is
accordingly disposed of.
In Re: MAT 1021 of 2022
With
IA No: CAN/2/2023
By consent of learned Advocate appearing for the
appellant, the appeal and the connected application are
taken up together for hearing.
2
A Judgment and order dated April 12, 2022, whereby
the appellant's writ petition being WPA 3461 of 2022, was
dismissed, is under challenge in this appeal.
The appellant says that his father was working as a
Sub-Assistant Engineer in Jhalda Municipality. He died in-
harness in the year 2005. The appellant, in the same year,
made an application for being appointed on compassionate
ground in died-in-harness category. In 2010, considering
his financial crisis, the Municipality employed him as a
casual worker. His application was kept pending. In 2012,
the Municipality recommended his case for being
appointed in died-in-harness category as a Conservancy
Jamadar, which is a sanctioned post, to the Director of
Local Bodies. The recommendation was supported by a
finding by a Committee that the appellant was indeed in
financial crisis. There was total inaction on the part of the
Director of Local Bodies. The appellant was meted out
repeated assurances that his case would duly be
considered. Ultimately, the appellant had to approach the
learned Single Judge with the present writ petition for
appropriate direction on the respondent Authorities to
grant him compassionate appointment.
The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition
primarily on the ground that for 18 years after the death of
the appellant's father, the appellant slept over his rights.
The learned Judge relied on three authorities which lay
down the principles governing compassionate appointment.
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up by way of
this appeal.
We are conscious that compassionate appointment is
not a mode of recruitment. It is only a special formula
devised by the Courts to enable a bereaved family to tide
over immediate and sudden financial crunch when the
deceased person who died-in-harness, was the sole bread
earner of the family. It cannot be an alternative or
substitute for the regular method of recruitment. A person
requesting for compassionate appointment must approach
the concerned Authority immediately or soon after the
demise of the concerned employee. It is correct that
unreasonable and unexplained delay in applying for
compassionate appointment is itself sufficient to defeat the
application.
However, in the present case, it may not have been
entirely correct for the learned Judge to record that for 18
years after his father's demise, the appellant did nothing. It
is on record that the appellant applied in the year 2005
itself. In the year 2012, the Municipality recommended the
appellant's case to the Director of Local Bodies. The said
Authority has not yet taken any decision in the matter.
It is true that between 2012 and 2022, the appellant
did nothing. However, it is also a fact that he is working as
a casual worker in the said Municipality till date.
Considering that since 2010 or even there before, the
appellant is serving the Municipality, albeit as a casual
worker, and in view of the fact that the Director of Local
Bodies has not taken a decision on the recommendation of
the Municipality to grant compassionate appointment to
the appellant, we direct the Director of Local Bodies being
the respondent no.2 herein, to take a decision in the
matter, in accordance with law. We make it clear that we
are not binding the hands of the respondent no.2 in any
manner. The respondent no.2 shall take a reasoned
decision, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant or his authorized representative in accordance
with applicable Rules/Regulations, if any, and the settled
principles governing compassionate appointment. The
entire exercise shall be completed within eight (8) weeks
from the date of a copy of this order along with a copy of
the writ petition being forwarded to the respondent no.2.
The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
The appeal being MAT 1021 of 2022 and the
connected application being IA No: CAN/2/2023 are
disposed of.
Let urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
