Decided on November 18,1996

Bablu Bauri Appellant
The State of West Bengal and Ors. Respondents


Nripendra Kumar Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.)Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Abul Mansoor and the learned Advocate for the State, Mr. Nirmalendu Patra. Let the Power filed by the State be kept on record. By this writ petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the order no. 1 dated 17th June, 1996 passed by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Department, Government of West Bengal, rejecting the petitioner's representation for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground, inter alia, that as the father of the petitioner died in harness on 13.4.1987, viz Manindra Bauri who served then as chowkidar, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground.
(2.)The short background of the case is that one Manindra Bauri was the chowkidar of the Panchra Gram Panchayat and he died in harness on 13th April, 1987, Thereafter, the petitioner made an application and/or representation for appointment on compassionate ground. The matter once came up before this Court and this Court in Writ Petition No. 303 of 1996 directed the Principal Secretary of Panchayat Department, Government of West Bengal, to consider the case of the petitioner and after consideration by the said authority the authority rejected the prayer of the petitioner and/or representation of the petitioner on the ground that as the death of the father of the petitioner occurred on 13.4.1987 and as the benefit has been given for appointment by Notification dated 9.9.1988, so the notification will take effect on and from that date and as such the petitioner is not entitled to that benefit. The order is annexed to the writ petition and marked as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition.
(3.)Mr. Abul Mansoor contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 17.6.1996 is the product of misconception of notifications issued from time to time by the Government and the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal has failed to take notice of the latter in this regard which has been pronounced through decisions in this respect. Mr. Mansoor invited my attention in this regard to the notification no. 24611/III/Panch/4C - 2/86 (Pt. I) dated 9.9.1988 and contended that as the said notification is in continuation of the notification no. 9099/1 (15)/III/Panch dated 20.4.1985 and also notification No. 14504/(15)/III dated 31.5.1985, in effect the notification dated 9.9.1981 has been given a retrospective effect because of the word used in they notification "in continuation of this Deptt. No. 9099/l(15)/III Panel dated 20.4.1985 and No. 14504/(15)III dated 31.5.1985." Mr. Mansoor also relied on an unreported decision of this Court in the case of Magaram Ragdi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., being C. O. No. 6375 (W) of 1996, wherein it has been Held by this Court in its judgment dated 24.6.1996 that the notification No. 2461 l/III/Panch/4C - 2/86 (Pt. - I) dated 9.9.1988 is in continuation of notification No. 9099/l(15)/III/ Panch dated 20.4.1985 and notification No. l4504/(15)/3 dated 31.5.1985 and that by virtue of the said latter two notifications the notification dated 9.9.1988 has been given retrospective effect. In such view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and/or quashed and an appropriate order is to be passed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.