Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Amresh Kumar vs The Union Of India And Others on 12 January, 2017
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
12.01.17
Item No.20
Ct. No.01
Krishnendu
W.P.C.T. No. 284 of 2016
In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on
08.12.2016;
And
In re: Amresh Kumar
-Versus -
The Union of India and Others
Mrs. Madhumita Roy
Mrs. Anindita Roy
For the Petitioner
Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti
For the Respondents
The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 29th September, 2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. 350/01012/2015 with MA 350/00265/2016.
Mrs. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father met with an accident and expired on 21st March, 2010 while he was working in the post of Sr. Tech./C & W in Bokaro Steel City under South Eastern Railways. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached the authorities for grant of compassionate appointment on 6th July, 2010. Such application was rejected by an order dated 10th January, 2012 on the grounds, inter alia, that the postmortem report is not attested by a gazetted officer and that the postmortem report pertains to a person aged 45 to 50 years while the ex- employee was aged about 60 years. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner again 2 approached the authorities for reconsideration of the claim upon submitting all the relevant documents. The said application was also rejected by an order dated 18th June, 2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal.
Mrs. Roy submits that the order dated 18th June, 2013 does not disclose any reason as to why the petitioner's claim has not been accepted. The said order is a cryptic one and the petitioner's claim has been rejected mechanically without any independent application of mind. The learned Tribunal rejected the original application without considering the grounds of challenge and the explanation given by the petitioner towards the delay which occasioned in preferring the said application. Such infirmities warrant interference of this Court.
Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has approached the Tribunal belatedly and that the family of the deceased employee does not suffer from any financial stringency inasmuch as after the death of the employee, the widow is receiving family pension of Rs.8,630/- per month together with reliefs admissible from time to time. Towards provident fund, leave salary, CGEGIS and DCRG, she was disbursed an amount of Rs.13,60,183/-. Such fact was brought on record before the learned Tribunal by way of a reply filed by the respondents and the same was duly taken into consideration and since the family was not suffering from any acute financial stringency, the petitioner's claim was rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The primary consideration towards grant of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardships of the deceased's family 3 due to the loss of the sole bread earner. In the instant case, the employee expired only about eleven days prior to the date scheduled for his superannuation and the widow has received an amount of Rs.13,60,183/- towards provident fund and other dues and she is also getting family pension to the tune of Rs.8,630/- per month. From the reply filed by the respondents before the learned Tribunal it appears that the amount disbursed in favour of the widow towards provident fund and other dues is more than the amount which would have been available to the deceased employee had he been superannuated upon completion of his service tenure. The family particulars reveal that the deceased employee left behind his widow and three sons, out of whom two are already married and are living separately.
The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)