Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) The father of the writ petitioner/appellant was an employee of the respondent Licensee Company. He suffered from degenerative disc disease in lumbar spine with disc space narrowing, marginal sclerosis and osteophyte formation, particularly from L2 - L5. He wrote a letter dated 26th May 2010 to the Secretary of the respondentcompany narrating the sorry state of his health and also mental depression. He requested for an employment for his son being the present writ petitioner. He wanted to retire from service as he was unable to render service and instead he wanted his son to be employed.
(2.) By a letter dated 23rd April 2011, the respondent-company rejected the request of the petitioner's father to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not come within the purview of Clause 6 of Recruitment Policy, 2010 read with Clause 2(k) thereof. However, the company invited unconditional application for voluntary retirement from the petitioner's father, as was the desire of the petitioner's father. The petitioner's father was declared permanently incapacitated by the Medical Board and it was held that he was not in a position to render any further service to the company. The petitioner's father voluntarily retired and all admissible benefits were paid to him. The voluntary retirement of the petitioner's father was allowed by Office Order dated 20th September 2011 wherein it was recorded that he would not seek employment for any of his dependents in future.
(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner's father passed away. In the meantime, in the year 2012, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P. No. 3480 (W) of 2012 assailing the letters dated 23rd April 2011 and 20th September 2011. The grievance of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that it was wrongly held by the company that the petitioner does not come within the zone of consideration for being given compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge rejected the submission of the petitioner/appellant. The learned Single Judge analysed Clause 6 read with Clause 2(k) of the Recruitment Policy Rules, 2010 and came to a finding that since the incapacity/permanent disability of the petitioner's father was not due to any accident while on duty, the petitioner was not covered by Clause 6 of the Recruitment Policy, which provides for compassionate appointment.;