Sandip Chakraborty & Anr vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4990 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sandip Chakraborty & Anr vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors on 25 September, 2024

Author: Joymalya Bagchi

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

Sl. No. 22




                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
                  And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth

                             FMA 971 of 2024
                            CAN 1 of 2024
                        Sandip Chakraborty & Anr.
                                 Vs.
                     Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.


For the Appellant                   :   Mr. Rahul Karmakar
                                        Mr. D Upadhyay
                                        Ms. Munmun Majumder


For KMC                             :   Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh
                                        Mr. Arijit Dey



Heard on                        :       25.09.2024


Judgment on                     :       25.09.2024



Joymalya Bagchi, J.:-

    1. Appellant's father died in 2011. He was a minor at that time. His

        mother made application for his compassionate appointment in

        future after he attains majority. Respondent Corporation rejected

his application on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to

compassionate appointment at the time of death of the employee.

Thereafter, appellant's mother prayed for reconsideration of the said

order which remained pending for seven years. In 2022, appellant

approached this court seeking compassionate appointment.

2. Hon'ble Single Judge turned down his prayer. Review petition had

also been dismissed. Appeal has been filed against the dismissal of

review petition which is not maintainable in law.

3. Be that as it may, we have considered the issue on merit.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the ordinary rule of

public appointment through open competition. It may be availed

strictly in terms of scheme floated by the employer. Scheme for

compassionate appointment of the respondent corporation does not

give liberty to a minor son to seek employment upon attaining

majority. Admittedly, appellant was a minor at the time when his

father died. His mother made a prayer on his behalf for

appointment on compassionate ground after he attained majority.

Prayer was rightly turned down by the respondent corporation.

Instead of challenging the said decision, his mother prayed for

reconsideration of the said decision. After seven years appellant

approached this court seeking compassionate appointment. We are

of the view appellant was not entitled to compassionate

appointment as per the prevalent scheme as he did not attain

majority at the time of death of his father.

4. Accordingly there is no scope of reconsideration of such prayer.

Moreover, more than a decade and half has passed since death of

the employee and his prayer for compassionate appointment has

been rendered stale by efflux of time. Hence, we are not inclined to

interfere with the order impugned.

5. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of judgment, order if applied for be

given to the parties on compliance of all formalities.

I agree.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)                                  (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)




tkm