Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the denial of compassionate appointment on the death of their predecessor in interest dying-inharness. The predecessor in interest of the present petitioners was an employee attached to Santaldih Thermal Power Station and after working for about more than twenty six and a-half years he died on August 5, 2005. He was the father and husband of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 respectively. He had two sons, a daughter and his widow. None of them was an earning member. The petitioner no. 2 made an application before the respondents for employment of her son on compassionate ground who was then a major.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that after receiving the application the respondents asked the petitioner to appear on September 19, 2012 at the administrative building of the concerned Power Station for discussion and examination of the documents. After this was done, the respondents assured them that they would get in touch with the petitioners. Subsequently, on February 20, 2015, the Manager (HR & A) of the respondent organization sent a letter to the petitioner no. 1 regretting appointment on compassionate ground intimating her that in terms of the provision of the relevant Scheme of 2010, the prayer could not be considered. The petitioners state that they were shocked by the rejection of the claim of appointment on compassionate ground. However, since their financial condition was very poor and the family of the deceased had no source of income, the petitioner no. 1 again made an application on March 5, 2015, before the respondent authority to consider his case but till the date of filing of the writ petition the respondents did not consider the same.
(3.) It is the specific case of the petitioners that the ground of rejection of the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground, as mentioned by the respondents, was in terms of the relevant Scheme of 2010. But the father of the petitioner died in the year 2005 which was long before the Scheme was framed. Their further case is that the respondents did not properly assess their case and did not consider the economic condition of the family. Therefore, by the present writ petition, the petitioners prayed for a direction upon the respondents for setting aside and quashing of the communication, dated February 20, 2015 and for allowing the application of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground for a Group 'D' post at the concerned Thermal Power Station.;