Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Lipita Adhikary vs The State Of West Bengal And Others on 9 February, 2012

Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee

Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee

S/L. 61.
February 9, 2012.

                                  HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                                 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                        Appellate Side

                          W. P. S. T. No. 31 of 2012


                     Lipita Adhikary

                                        ....Petitioner.

                           Versus

                    The State of West Bengal and Others

                                  ...Respondents.

Mr. Udayan Dutta, Mr. Raja Ray ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Debangshu Basak, Ms. Munmun Tewary ...for the State-respondents.

An affidavit-of-service is filed in Court today; let the same be kept with the record.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated January 15, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, in Original Application No. 1304 of 2009.

In substance, the tribunal rejected the prayer for appoint of the petitioner on compassionate ground on the death of her mother.

The petitioner's father was a process server attached to the Judgeship of Cooch Behar. He died on September 5, 1991. On the prayer of the mother of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner was appointed as a Group- D staff on compassionate ground. Unfortunately, the mother of the petitioner, also, died on June 17, 1995 while in service.

The petitioner is the married daughter. However, her marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce by 'Lok Adalat' on May 27, 2006. She, thereafter, applied for appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her mother. The compassionate appointment was not granted. She approached the tribunal in 2009.

The tribunal, in our view, rightly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, held that she was not entitled to an appointment on compassionate ground.

Compassionate appointment is not a matter of course nor it can be get by way of inheritance. The petitioner was married at the time of death of her mother. It cannot be said that she was solely depend upon her mother.

It is true that, unfortunately, her marriage stood dissolve, but, we do not think, in changed circumstances, her claim for appointment on compassionate ground could be revived which, if any, accrued in 1995.

Therefore, the writ application stands rejected.

We make no order as to costs.

(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Nishita Mhatre, J.)