Shampa Sarkar, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated September 16, 2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Murshidabad rejecting the prayer for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground upon the death of his father late Md. Refikul Islam, Headmaster of Amirabad High Madrasah, P.O.-Bhagbangola, DistrictMurshidabad who died-in-harness. The father of the petitioner was appointed as the Headmaster of the Amirabad High Madrasah, District- Murshidabad and his appointment was approved with effect from July 12, 2010. The father of the petitioner expired on November 28, 2014, that is, before the date of his superannuation, leaving behind him a widow and two sons. The petitioner's father was the only earning member of the family and due to the financial hardship faced by the family of the deceased, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The Madrasah authorities forwarded the case of the petitioner to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Murshidabad and the same was received by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Murshidabad on July 15, 2015. The District Inspector of Schools by the order impugned to this writ petition rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the family was not suffering from extreme financial hardship and as such the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground under the diedin-harness category in terms of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Rules, 2010.
(2.) Mr. Manowar Ali, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said order suffers from non-application of mind and incorrect appreciation of the settled principles of law in this regard. According to the petitioner, in the decision of a Division Bench of this Court passed in MAT 1955 of 2013 (In re:-Sarkar Mukul Amin Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) it had been categorically held that compassionate appointment should not be rejected on the ground of disbursement of retirement benefits to the family members of deceased employee. He also relies on two other decisions of this Court, namely, Tapan Kumar Barman vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2009 1 CalHN 23 and Sujit Kumar Datta vs. United Commercial Bank, 2011 4 CalHN 29 (Cal).
(3.) Finally he relies on the decision of Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., 2000 6 SCC 493, in order to assert that the Apex Court had held that compassionate appointment could not be denied even if under the family benefit scheme of the Steel Authority of India, gratuity, provident fund and other terminal benefit were payable to an employee's family on the death of the employee.;