K.J.SENGUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS matter was heard on 4th March, 2008 and again on 1.1th March, 2008. On 4th March, 2008 learned lawyer for the State Mr. Saibal Acharya appeared. However, on 11th March, 2008 none appears on behalf of the State. This application is against an order of the learned Tribunal dated 19th October, 2001 by which the applicant's challenge against departmental order of rejection of claim for appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed. The fact is recorded in short as follows: One Nalini Ranjan Adgiri, since deceased is the father of the present petitioner and he was working before his. death as Foreman, Industrial Training Institute, Haldia in the District of East Midnapore under the Director of Industrial, Training, West Bengal. He died -in -harness on 27th May, 1996. The petitioner, being science graduate and also having obtained a diploma certificate in information technology from the Government of West Bengal immediately after the death of his father made his application on 23rd July, 1996 for appointment on compassionate ground. The said Nalini Ranjan. Adgiri died leaving him surviving his sole widow Indu Rani Adgiri, Sri Kamalesh Adgiri, the applicant herein, his son, and Smt. Sarbani Adgiri, his daughter. The petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment was for the post of Lower Division Clods and after receiving representation the Assistant Director of the Industrial Training informed that the [appropriate post is available and his appointment may be considered. Despite such recommendation by. letter dated 24th September, 1997, the State respondent, turned down prayer of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant challenging the aforesaid order filed an application in the State Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No. 1593 of 1998 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 25th August, 1998 directing the respondent Secretary, Department of Technical Education and Training to treat the application of the petitioner as representation and dispose of the same in accordance with the law after giving the applicant an opportunity of hearing. In terms of the above order, the Secretary of the concerned Department by an order dated 17th November, 1998 after hearing the petitioner disposed of the matter observing that the claim for compassionate appointment was not entertainable as there was no immediate need of the family since the said family of the deceased has received a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as death gratuity, group insurance etc. besides family pension. The family consists of wife and son, so the above amount is sufficient for their sustenance which is the prime consideration of the spirit of the policy regarding the employment on compassionate ground.
(2.) THE applicant challenged the above order by filing a subsequent application being O.A. No. 54 of 1999 on which the impugned judgment and order was passed. The learned Tribunal by an interim order dated 11th February, 1999 with a reasoned order admitted the said application and passed the initial order to keep one vacant post till further orders of the Tribunal. Thereafter the matter was heard finally by the learned Tribunal who passed the impugned order and upheld the order with reasons, passed by the Secretary as above. In the above facts and circumstances, the learned Counsel Mr. Dipak Banerjee, appearing for the petitioners, submits that both the orders are contrary to the scheme and policy of the compassionate appointment. In the scheme operating at the time of making application does not provide for any condition for granting compassionate appointment rather it provides for appointment in precedence over any other case. The aforesaid scheme was not even considered or looked into by the department. It is also submitted that it is incorrect to say that the deceased family consists of only widow and son. Actually, the deceased left an unmarried daughter. Immediately after his death the said family had fallen in real financial trouble for which immediate application was made for appointment but the department concerned did not take any step for appointment flouting the scheme promoted by it. He further submits that the receipt of terminal benefit viz. gratuity, family pension and also provident fund are not germane nor relevant factor for refusing on compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is a separate and welfare scheme to bail out the family from crisis which had been fallen due to sudden death. In support of his submission he cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. : 2000 (86) FLR 197 (SC) and also another decision of the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court rendered in case of Canara Bank v. Priya Jayarajan. Mr. Banerjee is fair enough to draw our attention to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court on appointment of compassionate ground rendered in case of Union Bank of India and Ors. v. M.T. Latheesh : 2006 (111) FLR 77 (SC).
(3.) WE do not have the benefit of listening argument of learned lawyer for the Slate. It has now to he considered whether the order passed by the Secretary of the Department concerned while rejecting claim of the applicant is sustainable in the eye of law or not. The learned Tribunal by its earlier order dated 25th August, 1998 has decided the matter. The learned Tribunal directed to consider claims and contentions as made in the earlier application treating the same as being a substantive representation. Therefore, it was incumbent on part of the Secretary to look into the relevant scheme and provision -for the compassionate appointment framed by the Government, which was prevailing. At that point of time we find following was the criteria in terms of the scheme for considering prayer for compassionate appointment:.However, while considering a particular petition for compassionate employment in the events above -mentioned, the appointing authority has to be satisfied as to whether the petitioner concerned was solely dependent on earnings of the deceased or incapacitated employee and whether the purpose of meeting the immediate need of assistance to the family will actually he served by offering employment to the petitioner, i.e. the dependent near relation concerned. Then again, it has also to be ensured that a person belonging to completely separate family is not normally treated as a 'near relation' or 'dependant' for this purpose. The entire matter should be judged on the basis of the economic relationship prevalent between the ex -employee concerned and the petitioner as also from the point of a normal family ambit.;