State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Aditi Chowdhury

The State and two of its officers have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 12th April, 2019 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereafter the tribunal) on O.A. 189 of 2019. By the order under challenge, the tribunal set aside the order impugned before it dated 29th March, 2018 declining the request of the respondent for compassionate appointment and directed re-examination as well as re-consideration of her case as per rules and to communicate her the resultant decision within twelve weeks.

The basic facts are not in dispute. The father of the respondent (the government servant) breathed his last on 27th May, 2013. Within a fortnight thereafter, the mother of the respondent (widow of the employee) prayed for consideration of the respondent's case for compassionate appointment. The application was made on plain paper and not in the proforma prescribed by the relevant guidelines issued by the State Government. Ultimately, of course, the respondent had filled up the proforma and submitted an application, which was rejected on 29th March, 2018 on the ground that the application was delayed.

In course of hearing before the tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the original applicant that on previous occasions the tribunal had regarded applications on plain paper as sufficient to claim compassionate appointment since the proforma had to be supplied by the department only. The tribunal was also of the view that the respondents before it were required to consider the application on plain paper and erred in forming an opinion that because the proforma application was belatedly filed, the claim of the original applicant was not maintainable.

Appearing before us in support of the application under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. Majumdar, learned Government Pleader has contended that the respondent was a minor, aged about 15 years, on the date of death of her father. Being a minor, she could not have been considered for appointment, as prayed for by her mother (the widow). The mother of the respondent was also aged about 48 years and, therefore, not eligible for appointment in Government service. Relying on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 4th February, 2019 in W.P.S.T. 35 of 2019 (Arindam Choudhury -vs- The State of West Bengal and Ors.), Mr. Majumdar contends that no legal right of the respondent was infringed by reason of rejection of her prayer for compassionate appointment, albeit on the ground of delay, since neither the wife of the deceased employee nor the respondent was eligible to claim appointment as on the date of death of the employee, i.e., 27th May, 2013, because of age criteria.

Per contra, Mr. Nandi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the premature demise of the employee left his family members in utter penury and, therefore, considering the object for which compassionate appointment is offered, the order of the tribunal does not deserve interference since only a direction for re-consideration has been made.

Insofar as the age of the respondent is concerned, it is Mr. Nandi's submission that as on the date of presentation of the original application, she had attained majority and, therefore, could lay a claim for compassionate appointment.

It has, however, not been disputed by Mr. Nandi that as on the date the employee breathed his last on 27th May, 2013, the relevant rules did not provide for any relaxation to be given to the minor dependents of a deceased employee to the extent that they would be considered for compassionate appointment once they attain majority.

We have heard the parties. The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. The order of the tribunal appears to have been rendered without noticing the decision in Arindam Choudhury (supra). It could be true that the said decision may not have been brought to the notice of the tribunal; however, the principles relating to compassionate appointment, which were culled out therein in detail from decisions of the Apex Court do suggest that it is only in a rare case, if provided by the scheme for compassionate appointment and not otherwise, that a dependent who was a minor on the date of death of the employee, could be considered for compassionate appointment. There being no such guideline in the scheme that was prevailing then and considering other decisions that were cited before the co-ordinate Bench, more particularly, the decisions reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718 (Life Insurance Corporation of India -vs-Asha Ramchandra Ambekar) and (1994) 4 SCC 138 (Umesh Kumar Nagpal -vs-State of Haryana), we hold that the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the order of the tribunal is set aside with the result that the original application before the tribunal shall stand dismissed.

There shall be no order for costs.