Sanjoy Singh Tamta vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated March 1, 2019 (for short, 'the impugned order') passed by the West Bengal Administrative

Tribunal, Kolkata (for short, the Tribunal) in OA 21 of 2016 (Sanjoy Singh Tamta vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) [for short, Original

Application], whereunder, the said Original Application filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed and the claim for compassionate appointment was

rejected.

The father of the applicant namely Amar Singh Tamta, since deceased, was employed as constable in the Office of the Superintendent of Police,

Purulia. He died on January 18, 1996 at the age of 55 years during his service tenure. The deceased employee left his widow, one son being the

petitioner and married daughter as his legal heirs and successors. At the time of death of the deceased employee the widow was suffering from liver

disease and the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner qualified Class-VIII from a school at Purulia. From the relevant school certificate issued by the

school authority it appears that the petitioner was born on December 19, 1981. After the petitioner attained the age of majority, the widow on January

12, 2000 applied for his compassionate appointment to the post of Constable. The petitioner was thereafter called for physical measurement tests and

was found ineligible. Pursuant to the prayer made by the petitioner for condonation of deficiency, the State employer by its order dated December 29,

2006 grated approval for such condonation for the post of Constable provided otherwise that the petitioner is found fit for such an appointment to the

post of Constable, as per the existing Rules and Orders. The widow then on September 7, 2011 further applied for compassionate appointment of the

petitioner to a Group-D post instead of constable. The petitioner then filed Original Application being OA 380 of 2013, which was disposed of by the

Tribunal vide order dated June 6, 2013 directing the Home Secretary to consider the prayer of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order after granting

an opportunity of hearing to him.

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, vide his order dated June 8, 2015 had rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate

appointment principally on the ground of delayed application made before the relevant authority and also on the ground that the petitioner was a minor

at the time of death of the employee. Being aggrieved by the said decision the said Original Application was filed, which was dismissed vide impugned

order.

Mr. Tarapada Das, Learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that, at the time of when the employee died in 1996 the petitioner was

minor and the widow being the mother of the petitioner was suffering from serious liver disease and as such the necessary application seeking

compassionate appointment could not be made forthwith. Immediately after attaining majority by the petitioner the widow applied seeking

compassionate appointment in his favour. He then submitted that after the demise of the employee the family had undergone severe financial distress

and the same is still continuing and, therefore, the compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner is absolutely essential for survival of the

family. It was further submitted that, even if the petitioner could not fulfill the eligibility criteria for the post of Constable but he is a fit candidate for

employment in the Group-D cadre.

Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya with Ms. Sanjukta Samanta, learned advocates appearing for the State submitted that, the mother of the petitioner made

an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner after four years of the death of the deceased employee. At the time of death of the

deceased employee the petitioner was a minor. Even when the claim for the petitioner was considered by the relevant authority he was found

disqualified by not fulfilling the physical measurement criteria required for the post of a Constable. Though the petitioner was granted repeated

opportunities for physical tests but every time he was found unfit and disqualified despite certain concession granted in respect of the deficiency in

height of the petitioner. Since it was found that the petitioner was not otherwise fit for appointment on the post of Constable his mother applied for

compassionate appointment for Group-D post.

The Learned State Counsel thereafter drew our attention to the reasoned order of rejection dated June 8, 2015 passed by the relevant authority

wherefrom it appears that, apart from physical disqualification the petitioner while applying before the Tribunal made several deliberate and willful

concealment of facts. While considering the case of the petitioner the relevant authority had duly applied its mind and considered the relevant rules

and regulations dealing with compassionate appointment as applicable in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted adequate

opportunity of hearing before the relevant authority before passing the reasoned order. The learned State counsel submitted that, the said reasoned

decision is just proper and lawful. Referring to the relevant provisions of law governing the field, she submitted that, the petitioner does not deserve

any compassionate appointment and his claim was rightly rejected.

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on a close perusal of the said reasoned order dated June 8, 2015 rejecting the claim

of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and the material before this Court, we are of the view that, the said reasoned order dated June 8, 2015

passed by the relevant authority is just, lawful and proper. All the factors both on facts and law including application of the relevant rules and

regulations and notification governing compassionate appointment were considered by the appropriate State authority. It is also evident from record

that the application for compassionate appointment was grossly delayed. For the post to which the appointment was sought by the petitioner or on his

behalf, by his mother the petitioner did not qualify the criteria and qualification for the same. The moment it was discovered by the petitioner that he

was not qualified for appointment on the post of Constable, he immediately switched over his claim for Group-D post. This is not permissible in law.

The object of compassionate appointment is not to generate State employment. Nor the same is an additional mode of recruitment as of right.

This Court is further of the firm view that, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as correctly noticed by the Tribunal, in the matter: of

Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, reported at (1994) 4 SCC138, it is well settled that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of

right. Mere untimely death of a government employee does not give his dependent family member a right to get compassionate appointment. It is not

an additional source of recruitment. The whole object is to enable the family to overcome the financial distress and crisis caused due to the sudden

demise of the sole bread earner of the family. Such an appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period of time.

Applying the law prevailing on the field, the purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a government servant due to his untimely death

while in service in preference to anybody else, is to medicate the immediate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his

unexpected death. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate ground provided and subject to there

being specific and express rules. The Courts and the Tribunal cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointment

on compassionate grounds if the regulation framed in respect thereof did not cover and contemplate such appointments. The whole object of granting

compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The only ground which can justify compassionate employment is the

penurious condition of the deceased family. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get

over the financial crisis. It is not an additional mode of recruitment to public employment. Furthermore, an application made at a belated stage cannot

be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time the purpose of taking such appointment stands evaporated. All what has been discussed above and

in view of the settled law on the subject, as had been duly considered by the Tribunal, the decision of the Tribunal is well reasoned. The Tribunal while

passing the impugned order had not committed any jurisdictional error. Thus, the order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity and as such the

same is not interfered with by this Court.

In view of our foregoing discussions the present writ petition being WPST 110 of 2020 stands dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.