- (1.) THE writ petitioner being the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 questioned the letter dated 8th March, 2006 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Power and Non conventional Energy, Government of West Bengal, wherein the prayer of the writ petitioner No.2 for appointment of his son being the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate ground was rejected.
(2.) THE fact of this case reveals that the petitioner No.2 was an employee of the respondent authority and he became permanently incapacitated on medical ground and he applied appointment of his son, the petitioner No.1, in a suitable post on compassionate ground on the basis of Circular dated 26th February, 1997. It appears from the record that the concerned authorities recommended the case of the petitioner No.2's son being the petitioner No. 1 for appointment and which was admitted by the answering respondent Nos.2,4,5 and 6 in their opposition wherein it was clearly stated that an Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter about the genuineness of the claim for voluntary retirement of Tarapada Das, being the petitioner No.2 herein, against an employment of his son on compassionate ground and on financial condition of the family. THE statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition which is very important in this case is quoted herein "the Committee supported the claim and they commented that the claim was genuine and recommended the claim of employment of Bikash Chandra Das, son of Tarapada Das on compassionate ground.", Even in spite of the fact that a recommendation was made by the Committee constituted under Office Order No.53 dated 13th March, 1999 the petitioner No. 1 was not given employment on compassionate ground. It appears from the record that the respondent authorities also appointed at least seven persons as would appear from the letter dated 27th February, 2006 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Power and Non- conventional Energy Sources. But unfortunately, the case of the petitioner No. 1, although recommended by the Committee constituted in that regard, have not been considered and no appointment was given. It also appears from the Notification dated 6th June, 2005 that the cases which are pending consideration under the 1997 Circular would not be guided by the present Circular but the appointment as recommended by the Committee would govern the relevant Circular which was applicable at the relevant point of time that is the Circular of 1997. Clause 15 of the said Notification dated 6th June, 2005 reads as follows: "15. Notwithstanding anything contained in para 13 and para 14 of this notification, cases in which verification rolls had been issued before the issue of this notification, to a dependant of an employee who died in harness or who retired on being declared permanently incapacitated from service, after due processing in accordance with the policy and procedure which was applicable to such cases prior to the date of coming into force of this notification, shall continue to be dealt with in accordance with the pre-existing policy and procedure." It appears from the records that only after few days from the date of giving appointment to the said seven candidates the impugned letter rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.2 was issued by the concerned respondents on 8th, March, 2006 leaving a gap of about nine days. The plea taken in the impugned letter that the petitioner No.2, being the employee, concerned did not have two years of service or more left to reach the age of superannuation when he retired/was not examined by the Government Medical Board as required under G.O. No.303-EMP/1M-10/2000 dated 21st August, 2002. Although two alternatives are there but on what ground the rejection was made is not clear from the said letter because both the clauses are kept intact without erasing or striking out any one of the same.
(3.) MR. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when it is the case of the answering respondents that the petitioner No.2 having a genuine case and on similar prayers the concerned respondents have issued letter of appointment and/or allowed appointment to seven candidates, the case of the petitioners was rejected on flimsy ground which is of course not specified in the impugned letter dated 8th March, 2006. He further submits that the Committee has recommended after scrutinizing everything but the concerned respondents did not appoint the petitioner No. 1 and waited and after waiting for quite sometime that is from 1997 to 2006 refused such appointment although 2002 Circular do not have any application either. It is not only unfair but also illegal and discriminatory on the part of the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities deliberately did not give employment to the petitioner No. 1 in spite of having all requisite qualifications and recommendation made by the Enquiry Committee constituted in that regard.;