AMULYA MAHATA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

LAWS(CAL)-2011-11-8

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Decided on November 11,2011

AMULYA MAHATA Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) FACTS If we take the factual matrix in a narrow campus we would find one Dolgobinda was working as a GDA in Kotshila Rural Health Centre. He died in harness on January 20, 2002 just on the eve of his retirement. He was supposed to retire after about eleven months. He served the State for thirtyfive years seven months thirteen days at the age of fifty-nine years one month two days, thus leaving ten months twenty eight days service left to his credit. His family received the post death benefit to the extent of Rs.3,89,831/- and was regularly drawing the family pension to the extent of Rs.3529/- per month. Dolgobindo had three bighas of cultivable land. His son's prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the family did not need any further financial support deserving compassionate appointment. The authority passed a reasoned order dated February 5, 2008 appearing at page 28 of the petition that became the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in O.A. No.5417 of 2008 disposed of vide judgment and order dated July 13, 2011 dismissing his application. Being aggrieved, Amulya son of Dolgobinda, the petitioner before the Tribunal approached us by filing W.P.C.T No.259 of 2011.
(2.) JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL The Tribunal considered the precedents on the issue of the Apex Court as well as High Court. The Tribunal held that the claim for compassionate appointment would be governed by the circulars dated April 16, 1998 and November 18, 1997 and not by later circular. On that score, the Tribunal joined issue with the reasoned order. The Tribunal however found favour with the argument of the State that the family did not need any further support. The Tribunal relied on the Patna High Court Judgment in the case of Ajoy Kumar VS- Canara Bank,2002 1 LLJ 602. The Tribunal also found the applicant over-aged for Government service and thus ineligible for appointment. The Tribunal also held that since the applicant could manage his affairs for a long period after the death of his father his prayer could not be considered as an emergent need. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the prayer on the ground that it was not an appropriate case where the Tribunal should interfere with the decision of the State rejecting his prayer for compassionate appointment. According to the Tribunal, his claim did not deserve any merit.
(3.) RIVAL CONTENTIONS We heard Mr. Gouri Sankar De, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Debangsu Basak, learned senior Government advocate for the State. They relied on the following decisions :- i) Umesh Kumar Nagpal VS- State of Haryana & Ors., 1994 4 SCC 138 ii) Balbir Kaur & Anr. VS- Steel Authority of India & Ors., 2000 6 SCC 493 iii) Punjab National Bank & Ors. VS- Ashwini Kumar Taneja, 2004 AIR(SC) 4155 iv) Govind Prakash Verma VS- Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., 2005 10 SCC 289 v) Nazrul Islam & Anr. VS- State of West Bengal & Ors., 2008 3 CalHN 564 vi) Rabin Routh VS- State of West Bengal & Ors.,2009 4 CalHN 748 vii) Tapan Kumar Barman VS- State of West Bengal & Ors., 2009 1 CalHN 23 viii) In re : Sujoy Kumar Pandit, 2010 4 CalHN 310 ix) Bhawani Prasad Sonkar VS- Union of India & Ors., 2011 4 SCC 209 While Mr. De harped on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma (Supra) Mr. Basak stuck to the decision in the case of Nagpal (Supra) to support the judgment of the Tribunal. Mr. Basak placed the latest decision of the Apex Court on the issue in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar (Supra) which, according to him, took care of all earlier precedents to negate the contention of the petitioners. ;

Click here to view full judgement.