TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY J. - (1.) The Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as SAIL) and one of its units, namely, Durgapur Steel Plant (hereinafter referred to as DSP) have preferred the instant writ petition challenging an order dated 15th February, 2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No.350/00289/2015.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that one Tushar Kanti Banerjee, the husband of the respondent no.1 herein and the father of the respondent no.2 herein, was suffering from the dreaded disease of cancer since the year 2009 and as it became impossible for him to continue in such service on medical ground, he made a representation in the month of November, 2010 for appointment of his son being the respondent no.2 herein in his place and stead. The authorities, however, did not constitute any Medical Board and in the midst thereof the said Tushar Kanti Banerjee died -in -harness on 9th December, 2011. The respondent no.1 herein made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 wanting to know the fate of the representations made by the deceased employee. In reply thereto, the authorities communicated two letters dated 22nd December, 2012 and 22nd February, 2013 stating, inter alia, that in view of the guidelines contained in a circular dated 31st January, 2012, the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the learned Tribunal by an application being O.A. 557 of 2013 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 20th November, 2014 quashing the memoranda dated 22nd December, 2012 and 22nd February, 2013 with a direction upon the DSP authorities to consider the claim towards compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the said order the claim was considered and rejected by an order dated 9th February, 2015. The said order was again challenged by the respondents by an application being OA No.350/00289/2015 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 15th February, 2016 quashing the impugned order dated 9th February, 2015 and remanding the matter back to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim keeping in mind the observations and directions contained in the earlier order of the learned Tribunal in O.A. 557 of 2013. Aggrieved by the said order dated 15th February, 2016, the petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment in favour of the respondent no.2 could not be considered in view of the guidelines contained in the circular dated 31st January, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the said guidelines) wherein there is no scope for considering the prayer of an employee for compassionate appointment when the employee has normally expired while in employment. Prior to death of the employee on 9th December, 2011, he was not declared medically invalid and such death was not due to any accident arising out of and in course of employment. Merely because the employee was suffering from a specified disease and or had been referred for treatment to a speciality hospital, his prayer for grant of appointment to his son is not entertainable. The said guidelines though promulgated by a circular dated 31st January, 2012 were declared to be operative in DSP on and from 1st January, 2011 vide memorandum dated 22nd February, 2012. Thus, on the date the said guidelines came into effect in DSP, the father of the respondent no.2 was in service and in between 1st January, 2011 to 9th December, 2011 there was no declaration of medical invalidation. As such, the subsequent application dated 5th April, 2012 seeking compassionate appointment, as directed to be considered by the learned Tribunal, is not entertainable in view of the said guidelines. The petitioners cannot be directed to act in derogation to the guidelines and to grant compassionate appointment.;