- (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by Arun Mishra, CJ.-The intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal & Others calling in question the order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Single Bench in W.P. No. 19968 (W) of 2006 (Shri Pumam Pradhan v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) by which the writ petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment has been allowed and compassionate appointment has been ordered to be made by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner for the post of 'Clerk'.
(2.) THE facts in short are that the mother of the petitioner was in the employment of Jasteghori Saranan Trilochan Balika Vidyalaya, Purba Medinipur. She was appointed on 15.05.1987. However, she died on 14.10.1995. The petitioner's mother was allegedly murdered by her husband, Dilip Prodhan, who was taken into custody and had been convicted for commission of offence under section 302 IPC. The petitioner was approximately 8 years at that time. He applied for compassionate appointment after attaining majority after ten years in the year 2005. The prayer had been rejected while memo dated 30.06.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) on the ground that compassionate appointment could not have been offered in terms of the policy which provided for appointment. The application for appointment on compassionate ground can be entertained if filed only within two years. The aforesaid memo was questioned. The Single Bench has observed that since the petitioner was minor at the time when his mother was murdered in the year 1995, thus the provision of filing the application within the period of two years for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment as provided in the Memo dated 2.1.1995 is not applicable considering the facts and circumstances of the case that rider has been held not to be applicable. Compassionate appointment has been directed as such, intra Court appeal has been preferred. Shri Ushanath Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant along with Md. Ghalib, has submitted that the Court has travelled beyond the policy. It was not open to direct compassionate appointment beyond policy by issuing direction to offer appointment on compassionate ground. The power of judicial review has been exceeded by the Single Bench He has further submitted that after 10 years there is no rhyme or reason and ground for compassionate appointment as the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour of the family in distress of the employee who died in harness. None of the factors was available for offering the compassionate appointment and as such, the impugned decision of the Single Bench is to be quashed.
(3.) SHRI Milon Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Daisy Basu, on behalf of the respondent, has made endeavour to sustain the order by referring to the various facts and circumstances of the instant case. It was submitted that the provisions contained in the Memo dated 2.1.1995 for filing application within a period of two years is applicable in the case of member of teaching staff who died in harness. The same period of limitation cannot be said to be applicable towards non-teaching staff. Since the petitioner was minor in the instant case, he could not have applied at the relevant point of time and rightly when he attained the age of majority, he filed the application which ought to have been allowed. The Single Bench is right in directing compassionate appointment and no case for interference is made out.;