JUDGEMENT
HARISH TANDON,J. -
(1.) The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the District Inspector of school vide
memo no. 518 (5)/P dated 16.9.2008 by which an application for appointment of the
petitioner no. 1 on compassionate ground was rejected.
(2.) Brief facts of this case are that the father of the petitioner no. 1 who was the primary
teacher, died on 12.1.2001 leaving behind him surviving his widow the petitioner no. 2 and
two sons including the petitioner no. 1 and two unmarred daughters. The petitioner no. 2
applied on 4.7.2002 before the District Inspector of School (Primary), Murshidabad for
appointment of the petitioner no. 1 on compassionate ground. During the pendency of the
said application the petitioner no. 1 attained the age of 18 years and also passed Madhyamik
examination and thus qualified the eligibility criteria enshrined under the statutory rule
governing the field of compassionate appointment.
Ultimately, the said appointment was rejected by the District Inspector of School
which was duly communicated to the petitioner by the Chairman, District Inspector of
School, Murshidabad on 5.2.2004 without assigning any reason. The said decision was
assailed by the petitioners before this court in W.P no. 15132 (w) of 2006. This court on
8.7.2008 quashed and set aside the said decision being a cryptic order as it does not disclose
any reason and directed the District Inspector of School (Primary), Mrshidabad to consider
the said application afresh within the stipulated period.
By the impugned decision the said application is again rejected by the said authority
on manifold grounds namely, (i) the ward having appropriate age and requisite educational
qualification should have applied for appointment on compassionate ground immediately
after the death of the teacher (ii) that the family has failed to produce any reliable evidence
in support of the financial condition and (iii) that the petitioner no. 2, widow, had received
family pension and other retiral benefits.
(3.) The said decision is assailed in this writ petition by the petitioners.
According to the petitioner, the authorities could not have rejected the said
application on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 has to make an application immediately
after the death of the father. It is further contended that when the application which was
filed by the petitioner no. 2, widow, came for consideration the petitioner no. 1 acquired the
requisite age and educational qualification and thus become eligible to be considered for
appointment on compassionate ground. He strenuously argued that the Pradhan of the
concerned Panchayat certified the annual income of the family which cannot be said to be
sufficient for providing two square meals to the family.
Lastly it is contended that the payment of the retrial benefit and/or pension cannot be
a ground for rejection of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. To
buttress such submission, reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this
court in case of Robin Rout Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (4) CHN
748, Sujay Kumar Pandit reported in 2010 (4) CHN 310, Tapan Kumar Barman Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) CHN 23, Nazrul Islam & Anr. Vs.
State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2009 (1) CHN 339 and a judgment of the apex
court in case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 493, in case of Syed Khadim Hussian Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. .reported
in (2006) 9 SCC 195 and a Single Bench judgment of this court in case of Namita
Pramanick Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in (2008) 1 CLT 217 (HC).
Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for the state respondents submits that the
appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Such
appointments are made to overcome the sudden financial crisis which the family of a
deceased teacher has faced due to death of bread winner. It is further contended that the
family has received the retiral benefits and pension which does not entitle the appointment
on compassionate ground.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.