- (1.) We heard the above two matters separately. Both these matters would involve identical question of law. Hence, we have decided to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. FACTS W.P.C.T. 315 OF 2010 One Ranjit Kumar Halder was a machine man in Government of India Press. He died on March 3, 1998 in harness after rendering thirty-four years six months and twelve days. He was fifty-eight years old, as appears from the death certificate.
(2.) Ranjit left him surviving Subhadra as his widow as also one Khokon Halder his minor son aged about fifteen years old. Khokon applied for compassionate appointment in 2001 after attaining majority. The authority rejected such prayer on the ground that the deceased employee rendered thirty-four years six months and twelve days service. The family received Rs.2,36,140/- as terminal benefit apart from extension of family pension facility to the extent of Rs.2400/- as also Dearness Allowance thereon. The authority observed that the family was above the poverty level so fixed by the Planning Commission. The family owned immovable property valued at Rs.8000. Subhadra approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated June 8, 2005 rejected the said application. Subhadra contended before the Tribunal that she could not approach Tribunal earlier due to financial stringency. She prayed for condonation of delay if any. On merits, she contended that her married daughter was turned out of her house in April 2002 along with her three minor children. Hence, the financial condition became precarious. The respondent however opposed such prayer by contending that at the time of death of the concerned employee only two dependent members being the widow and the only son constituted the family. Subsequent change in constitution of the family could not be an additional ground. The respondent contended that the authority considered the case under the guidelines of the Government framed for compassionate appointment that did not call for any interference.
(3.) We also find from the judgment of the Tribunal that the Assistant Labour Welfare Commissioner visited the house of the family on May 23, 2001 and found that the family had cultivable land yielding Paddy for consumption. The house was however without any electricity or any modern amenities. The deceased employee had six children out of them five daughters had already been married leaving only the applicant and her son to constitute the family. He recommended the case for absorption.;