Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India & Ors vs Sandhya Mallick & Another on 21 December, 2011
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee
-And-
The Hon'ble Justice Shukla Kabir (Sinha)
W.P.C.T. 240 of 2011
Union of India & Ors.
-Versus-
Sandhya Mallick & Another
For Petitioners : Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafdar
Union of India Mr. Joydeep Sen
For Respondents : Mr. Kamalesh Jha
Mr. Shibaji Ghosh Heard on :- December 05 & 21, 2011 Judgment on :- December 21, 2011 The father of the respondent No. 2 died in harness on January 29, 1997. He was eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment as per the Scheme. Initially when his father died, the Authority was obliged to consider him by keeping him in the panel for one year. However, within one year his turn did not come in absence of appropriate vacancy. On May 05, 2003 the Ministry of Personnel considered the hardship being faced by the bereaved families for non-consideration of the prayer for compassionate appointment because of the short span of time. The Ministry of Personnel issued a Memorandum dated May 05, 2003. The Authority observed "question of prescribing a time limit for making compassionate grounds has been examined in the light of representations received, stating that the one year limit prescribed for grant of compassionate appointments, on account of regular vacancies not being available." The Authority extended the period for three years and prescribed the following guideline :-
"The maximum time a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years, subject to the condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the 2 second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed and will not be considered again."
Despite such relaxation being given the present respondent before us did not get any opportunity within three years. He approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal liberally construed the memorandum by observing that he should get at least three chances for being considered.
Being aggrieved, the Union of India has approached us by filing the instant application.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafdar, learned Counsel has produced records, wherefrom it appears that the respondent No. 2 did not get a single opportunity for being considered in past as his turn did not come. Mr. Tarafdar has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Nanded-Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh reported in (2000) 2 SCC 69. He has relied on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision in support of his contention that construction of the particular Memorandum could only be done finding out the real meaning of it without adding or substituting any word and avoiding interpretation which results in rejection of words as meaningless. He has also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Kumar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 516, on the same logic.
We have heard Mr. Kamalesh Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Compassionate appointment is contrary to the provisions of the regular law. It offends Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, in exceptional circumstances it is given so that on an untimely demise of sole bread-earner, the bereaved family gets an opportunity to tide up sudden financial stringency the family 3 suffered. The Tribunal asked the Authority only to consider him along with all other eligible candidates. There was no specific mandate to give appointment. We do not find any scope to interfere.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.
( Banerjee, J.) ( Shukla Kabir (Sinha), J.) akb