Ct. 8 The State Of West Bengal & Anr vs Abdul Alim Khan & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6277 Cal

                                                MAT 1769 of 2022
Item-38.                                         CAN 1 of 2022
           19-09-2023
                                                 CAN 2 of 2022
  sg
             Ct. 8                  The State of West Bengal & Anr.
                                                  Versus
                                         Abdul Alim Khan & Ors.


                            Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, AGP.
                            Mr. Sanjib Das, Adv.
                            Mr. Biman Halder, Adv.
                                                        ...for the appellants
                            Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Adv.
                            Mr. Nirmalya Kr. Das, Adv.
                                                        ...for the respondent no.1

Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Adv.

Mr. Manas Kr. Sadhu, Adv.

...for the State respondent

1. CAN 1 of 2022 is an application for condonation of delay.

There is a delay of 164 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Sufficient cause being shown for not being able to prefer the

appeal within the time of limitation. The delay of 164 days in

preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. CAN 1 of 2022 is,

thus, disposed of.

3. This appeal is arising out of an order dated 21 st February,

2022. On the limited issue that the application for

compassionate appointment was not decided on the basis of

the scheme prevalent on the date of demise of the employee

as held in the matter of State of M.P. vs. Ashish Awasthi

reported in (2022) 2 SCC 157, we do not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. The financial position of the family would need to be

evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the

relevant scheme. It is well settled that compassionate

appointment is not a matter of right, but must be governed by

the terms on which the State lays down the policy of offering

employment assistance to a member of the family of a

deceased Government employee [See State of H.P v.

Prakash Chand; 2019(4) SCC 285]. The said decision

considered and distinguished in Govind Prakash Verma vs.

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. reported in

(2005) 10 SCC 289 in paragraph 8 of the judgment.

However, in the event the scheme in express terms require

that the family pension received by the dependants of the

deceased employee is required to be taken the writ

petitioners cannot object to it as the application needs to be

considered on the basis of the scheme. Moreover, Govind

Prakash Verma (supra) was held to be per incurium in

State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Surya Narain Tripathi

reported in (2014) 15 SCC 739.

5. The inquiries as directed by the learned Trial Judge shall,

however, be carried out by the appellants.

6. The District Inspector of School (S.E.), Purba Medinipur

shall reconsider the matter in the light of the observations

made in this order at the earliest but positively within the

period of eight weeks from date by a reasoned order and

communicate the same to all the parties immediately

thereafter.

7. It is needless to mention that in the event the reasoned order

is in favour of the writ petitioners, immediate steps should be

taken for appointment of the writ petitioners.

8. With the above observations, the appeal and the application

are accordingly, disposed of.

9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,

be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite

formalities.

  (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)                  (Soumen Sen, J.)