TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred challenging a judgment and order dated 28th January, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 33735 (W) of 2014. The said writ petition was preferred by the respondent no.1 herein challenging, inter alia, an order dated 20th August, 2014 passed by the appellant no.2 rejecting the writ petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. Though there has been a delay of 160 days in preferring the appeal, Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant was invited to advance her arguments on the merits of the appeal.
(2.) Ms. Bhattacharyya submits that the proforma application filed by the writ petitioner on 15th July, 2013 claiming compassionate appointment was defective and as such by a letter dated 30th April, 2013 issued by the appellant no.3 appropriate particulars were sought for and thereafter the writ petitioner's claim was considered. In the midst thereof, the West Bengal Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the said scheme of 2013) came into effect from 3rd December, 2013. The writ petitioner's claim was found to be barred in terms of the said scheme of 2013 and was accordingly rejected by the order impugned in the writ petition. There is no infirmity in the said order inasmuch as by the time proper application was filed by the writ petitioner, the said scheme of 2013 had already come into effect and the writ petitioner's claim was rightly considered in terms of the same.
(3.) She further submits that after the employee died in harness on 22nd January, 2010, his widow made an application on 8th February, 2010 without specifying the name and relation of the deceased employee for whom compassionate appointment was sought for. At that juncture, compassionate appointment could have been prayed for either by the widow or by the major daughter of the deceased employee. The writ petitioner was admittedly a minor on the date of the said application and was disentitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The dependants chose to wait till the writ petitioner attained majority and from such sequence of facts it is explicit that the family was not suffering from acute financial hardship. No vested right accrued in favour of the writ petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment on the basis of the said application dated 8th February, 2010. In support of such arguments reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of MGB Gramin Bank -Vs- Chakrawarti Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 and in the case of Sanjay Kumar -Vs- State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2782.;