Sahidullah Munshi, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed complaining that the petitioner is entitled to a compassionate appointment on the death of her father Suresh Chandra Modak, who expired while in service on 30th November, 2012. The petitioner has annexed a death certificate to show that her father died on 30th November, 2012. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24th December, 2012 her mother made an application on her behalf praying for a compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was dependent on her mother. Thereafter, again an application has been made on 18th October, 2014 by the mother of the petitioner requesting for appointment of the petitioner in the diein-harness category. The said applications are Annexure P-1 and P-2. Annexure P-2 is the last application as is evident from the writ petition. The petitioner has filed this writ petition primarily on the grievance that the prayer for compassionate appointment made by her mother has not been considered. However, in the writ petition the petitioner has made the following prayers : - " a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue i) by directing the respondent Secretary, Municipal Affairs Department to consider the case of the petitioner, on the strength of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Special Bench in FMA 1277 of 2015 with WPST 447 of 2013 and WPST 78 of 2014 and pass necessary orders on the pending application of the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment. ii) by directing the respondent Secretary, to issue order of appointment in favour of the petitioner, if, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment in place of her deceased father. b) Writ of or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the respondent to certify and produce relevant documents of the instant case to this Hon'ble Court for rendering justice; c) Rule NISI be issued in terms of prayers above; d) Costs of an incidental to this application by paid by the respondents; e) Such further or other order or orders be made and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
(2.) In the writ petition the writ petitioner has stated that her mother expired on 21/9/2015. She has also stated that her mother used to get pension and further that the family of the deceased employee also received a total death benefit of Rs.5.5 Lakh apart from pension. Petitioner stated that she had passed Madhyamik examination in 2002 and that she has been residing at 4, Keshabpally, Ashoknagar with her husband Sri Bipul Podder and that she used to pay house rent of Rs.5,500/- as license fee for the place which was taken for her residence.
(3.) Mr. Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that his client's mother made an application which is pending before the authority without any order. In any event the authority either should have allowed or rejected it. However, the writ petition discloses no such prayer for consideration of her application, perhaps for the reasons that there is no application made by the petitioner before the authority concerned to consider her appointment on compassionate ground. It is the application made by her mother on behalf of the petitioner praying for compassionate appointment and, ultimately, in 2005 the petitioner's mother died. It is doubtful whether the petitioner at the moment can agitate the grievance that her application is still pending and could allege that the prayer has not been considered and disposed of by the authority concerned. Therefore, I intended to decide the matter on merit considering it to be a prayer of the petitioner whether she is at all entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground on the death of her father for which her mother made an application. Although, at the commencement of the hearing it was pointed out to Mr. Bhattacharya as to why the writ petition has been made at a belated stage but Mr. Bhattacharya replied that in 2014 the last representation was made by the mother of the petitioner and the writ petition was filed sometime in November, 2017. Therefore, according to him, the delay is not fatal. However, considering the employment of a person I intended to hear the writ petition on merit without going into the question of delay in moving the writ petition. Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for the petitioner has submitted that his client should be appointed on compassionate ground for the reason that various similar orders have been passed by this Court both by Single Bench as also by Division Bench and in pursuance whereof the authorities made compassionate appointment.;