Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2011 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge allowed the writ petition being No.W.P.22073(W) of 2006 on merits and directed the appellants herein to give employment to the respondent-writ petitioner No.1 on compassionate ground.
(2.) GOING through the records, we find that the father of the respondent/ writ petitioner namely the respondent/writ petitioner No.2 herein informed the competent authority of the West Bengal State Electricity Board to allow him to retire permanently from the service since he became totally incapacitated to perform any duty. The said respondent/writ petitioner No.2 also requested the competent authority namely, the Personal Manager, State Electricity Board to arrange for employment for his son namely, the respondent writ petitioner No.2. The aforesaid prayer of the respondent writ petitioner No.2 was forwarded to the Director (HRD), West Bengal State Electricity Board by the Principal (Officiating) PSPTI, Tribeni Hooghly under Memo dated 9th June, 1997. The concerned respondent, however, sat tight over the matter for a considerable period. Ultimately on 22nd April, 2000, medical examination was arranged by the Medical Board for determination of the physical fitness of the said respondent/writ petitioner No.2. The Medical Board thereafter on 13th May, 2000 examined the respondent/writ petitioner No.2 and found him to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind. The specific opinion expressed to the Medical Board after examination of the respondent writ petitioner No.2 has been specifically mentioned in the certificate granted by the Medical Board. The relevant extracts from the said certificate issued by the Medical Board are set out hereunder: "We consider Sri Tarapada Das to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind (or in the Department to which he/she belongs)..................." Even after issuance of the aforesaid certificate by the Medical Board, the competent authority of the appellants herein did not declare the respondent writ petitioner No.2 as completely and permanently incapacitated and thus denied employment to the said respondent/writ petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground as a dependent of the permanently incapacitated employee. Ultimately, the respondent writ petitioner No.2 attained the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2003. The Joint Secretary, Department of Power, Government of West Bengal most surprisingly after a lapse of three years rejected the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner No.2 for appointment of the dependent on compassionate ground by the written communication dated 8th March, 2006 wherein the said Joint Secretary specifically mentioned that the case of the respondent-writ petitioner No.2 along with other could not be considered for employment of dependent since the employee concerned did not have two years of service or more left to reach the age of superannuation when he retired. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid written communication of the Joint Secretary, Department of Power dated 8th March 2006 are set out hereunder: "Subject: Appointment on compassionate ground of the dependants of employees permanently incapacitated to render service. Sir, I am directed to refer to the subject captioned above and to state that the following 6 (six) cases could not be considered for appointment dependants of employees who are permanently incapacitated, for reasons viz. the employee concerned did not have two years of service or more left to reach the age of superannuation when the retired/was not examined by Government Medical Board as required under G. O. NO.303-EMP/1M-10/ 2000 dated 21.08.2002." (Emphasis Supplied)
(3.) WE do not understand what the Joint Secretary really wanted to mean by furnishing the aforesaid alleged reasons, which, in our opinion, do not make any sense. In any event, it is not in dispute that the respondent writ petitioner No. 2 being totally and permanently incapacitated could not perform any duty since 2nd July, 1999, i.e. long before the medical examination conducted by the duly constituted Medical Board and the said Medical Board also found the respondent-writ petitioner No. 2 as completely and permanently incapacitated for any kind of service.;