Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapan Kumar Dhar vs The Vice Chancellor on 17 September, 2024
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
WPA 20592 of 2024
Tapan Kumar Dhar
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Calcutta University & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Kanti Kamal Sen
For the Calcutta University : Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
Mr. Sourabh Sengupta
Heard on : 17.09.2024
Judgment on : 17.09.2024
JAY SENGUPTA, J:
This is an application praying for quashing of the
impugned Order No. Est./1841/50A dated 06.04.2011 issued
by the Registrar of the University of Calcutta and the impugned
Item No. 51 of the resolutions dated 27.10.2015 adopted by the
2
Syndicate of the Calcutta University and for issuance of a fresh
order in favour of the petitioner antedating his date of
appointment in the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate
ground from 12.11.2009 to 25.10.1982 or 14.01.1983.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits as follows. The petitioner's father was an employee of
the University of Calcutta. He died on 02.03.1976. The
petitioner's mother prayed before the University that her son
should be appointed on compassionate ground once he attained
majority because the petitioner's mother was not capable of
holding such post. The petitioner attained majority on
25.10.1982
. However, before that on 29.08.1982, he had applied
for compassionate appointment. On 14.01.1983, a resolution
was adopted by the Calcutta University syndicate in which a
definite framework or Rules for appointment on compassionate
ground was approved. However, the petitioner was not granted
appointment soon thereafter. It was only on 05.11.2009 that the
petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate ground.
He continued with the employment and was promoted to the
post of Senior Assistant in 2018. His prime contention is that he
should have been granted an appointment at least in 1983 when
the scheme for compassionate appointment was approved by the
syndicate. If the same effect is given, the petitioner would be
able to draw full pension of his retirement. In other similar
cases, such benefits have been granted by the University, even
from the year 1979.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University
denies the allegations and submits as follows. First, the scheme
for compassionate appointment for the University came up only
in 1983. The question of giving an appointment on
compassionate ground before that did not arise. Secondly, it is a
fact that the petitioner was given an appointment on
compassionate ground in 2009 and he accepted the same on
such terms. It is indeed very surprising that after the passage
of so many years, the petitioner was granted appointment on
compassionate ground, because the essence of appointment on
compassionate ground was to tide over the immediate crisis in
the family. Moreover, such appointment on compassionate
ground can hardly be claimed as of right. However, as such
appointment was given, the petitioner can fairly continue with
the same and even be entitled to all pensionary benefits
thereafter in accordance with law. As the petitioner did not work
for an earlier period, antedating the date of appointment cannot
be prayed for. Without admitting the petitioner's claim in this
regard, even if a wrong precedent has been set in any other
case, the same cannot be followed in the present case as of
right.
It is very surprising indeed that the petitioner was granted
compassionate appointment by the University after so many
years. In the instant case, the petitioner's father died in the year
1976. The petitioner became a major in 1982. The scheme for
compassionate appointment came up in 1983. Yet, the
petitioner was granted appointed in 2009. After all, the essence
of compassionate appointment is that it is meant for the family
of the deceased to tide over the immediate financial crisis.
Be that as it may, once the petitioner has been granted
such appointment on compassionate ground, he shall be
entitled to continue with the same and even to draw pensionary
benefits, if any.
However, after all this long, the petitioner cannot, as of
right, claim that his date of appointment should be antedated to
a time when he became major or when the scheme for
compassionate appointment got the approval.
Even if, for argument's sake, a contrary example has been
set erroneously, such wrong cannot be repeated in the instant
case.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this
application.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be
supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J)
ssi
