Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ayan Sen vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 December, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
W.P.A. 13237 of 2016
Ayan Sen
-Vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kallol Basu
Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey
Mr. Subhankar Banerjee
For the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 : Mr. Supriya Majumder
For the State : Mr. Jayanta Samanta
Mr. Indumouli Banerjee
Heard on : 30.09.2024, 17.12.2024, 21.02.2025,
24.03.2025, 29.07.2025, 21.08.2025
Judgment on : 02.12.2025
Uploaded on : 06.12.2025
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
1. The petitioner, an unemployed educated youth possessing a Bachelor of Commerce degree together with a computer diploma, stated the untimely demise of his father, an employee of the Greater Calcutta Gas Corporation Limited on 29th September, 2002, after prolonged illness and sustained medical expenditure, launch the family into acute financial adversity. The petitioner and his widow mother were compelled to incur substantial borrowings, merely to survive the turbulence that followed the tragic event. It was in this backdrop of economic deprivation and emotional turbulence that the petitioner, being the son of the deceased employee, 2 approached the respondent authorities seeking compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness category.
2. The petitioner applied before the Managing Director of the Corporation on 30th January, 2003 submitting a duly filled pro forma containing all requisite particulars. The petitioner's stance was that despite complaints with every procedural formality, the authorities concerned maintained the policy of silence, allowing the petitioners free for compassionate appointment to languish without consideration. Left with no alternative, the petitioner addressed multiple representations to Higher Authorities, including the Deputy Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Government of West Bengal. A reminder dated 24th November, 2005 was also sent to the Managing Director of the Corporation beseeching due attention to his application. However, all such representations remained unattended.
3. It was the petitioner's categorical assertion that every persuasion and request was made with apathy until eventually the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Commerce and Industries Department STT branch, issued Memo No.30-CI/O/Apnt.-Compte/005/09/Estt. dated 10th January, 2011, specifically recognizing the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and issuing clear-cut directions upon the respondent-Corporation to take necessary steps for giving him appointment forthwith. According to the petitioner, this memo constituted not merely an administrative communication, but crystallized promise, affirming that he wanted to be considered for appointment under compassionate category.
3
4. Despite such an equivocal directions emanating from the competent authority, the petitioner was neither appointed nor informed of any reason for denial. The petitioner asserted 6 out of 8 candidates mentioned in the said memorandum were indeed granted appointment by the respondent authorities on compassionate grounds. Only the petitioner and another candidate were left out without rational basis. Such exclusion, the petitioner constituted a stark and unreasonable discrimination violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The deprivation, unexplained and prolonged, was described as a unique instance of vindictiveness producing immense mental and psychological trauma upon a young unemployed citizen who had every legitimate expectation of timely consideration.
5. The petitioner further contended compassionate appointment as recognized by judicial pronouncements had evolved for a near concession to a valuable right in the nature of property intended to alleviate sudden financial shock, resulting from the loss of the families breadwinner. The respondent's inaction marked by culpable delay spanning several years had vendor the scheme ineffective in its very purpose thereby undermining principles of fairness, equity, and good governance.
6. The petitioner highlighted the rejection communicated through letter No.789/CI/O/Apnt.-Compte/005/09/Estt. dated 21 April 2016, alleging suppression of facts on the ground that the petitioner's mother Kabita Sen was employed at the relevant time was factual incorrect. Record showed that she left her employment with effect from May 2004 which was properly reflected in the pro forma. The petitioner submitted the 4 allegation to be a desperate afterthought lacking any foundation in the material materials on record.
7. Furthermore, the petitioner narrated that during earlier proceedings before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.2538 (W) of 2013, this Court had directed the Corporation to file a report pursuant to which the pro forma dated 1st March, 2007 was placed before the Court. The matter eventually came up before the Hon'ble Court on 3rd September, 2015 whereupon the Learned Judge directed the Corporation to forward all relevant materials pertaining to the petitioner to the competent authority for final decision.
8. Yet the petitioner lamented that even after such judicial direction, his rightful claim remained unattended. He narrated that over the last several years, he was repeatedly given false assurance that his case was under
active consideration, that he witnessed 6 out of 8 similarly situated candidates received appointment and that he waited in helpless hope that was appointment letter would one day arrive, but in vain.
9. The petitioner asserted that the respondent being public officers on duty to act fairly and with a sense of responsibility. Instead, they acted in an arbitrary, illegal and mala fide manner by failing to sponsor the petitioner's name for the post of Lower Division Clerk by maintaining protracted silence without furnishing any reasons and thereby infringing his fundamental rights.
10. The petitioner submitted that in the face of a tear administrative promise contained in the Memo dated 10th July, 2011 and repeated directions from the competent authorities, the respondent continued denial of compassion appointment to him was wholly unsustainable in law. The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 5 respondent authorities to appoint him forthwith on compassionate grounds restoring the rights wrongfully withheld for a decade.
11. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner urged immediately upon the death of his father, the petitioner, being a Graduate with a computer diploma applied before the Managing Director of the Corporation on 30 th January, 2003 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the died-in-harness category. A pro forma application containing all requisite disclosures was duly submitted. The State Authority, namely the Assistant Secretary, Commerce, and Industries Department, upon due consideration, issued Memo No.30-CI/O/Apnt.-Compte/005/09/Estt. dated 10th January 2011, wherein the candidature of the petitioner was formally recognised. The said memo contained specific directions upon the Corporation to take necessary steps for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
12. The Learned Counsel representing the petitioner contended despite the petitioner's name being duly considered by the Hon'ble Governor and the issuance of such categorical directions, the petitioner was not appointed. Left remediless, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P. 2538 (W) of 2013, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Corporation filed a report annexing the petitioner's pro forma submitted on 1st March 2007, indicating that although an earlier pro forma was submitted on 3rd March 2004, a subsequent pro forma was filed upon instructions of the Corporation's Accountant. The documents revealed the petitioner's mother Kabita Sen who earlier served in a private company had resigned with effect from May 15, 2004 which was mentioned in the first pro forma.
6
13. It was further submitted the writ petition came up before this Hon'ble Court on 3rd September, 2015 with a direction to the Corporation to forward all relevant materials pertaining to the petitioner to the competent authority for a final decision. However, despite judicial intervention, the petitioner remain unappointed.
14. The Learned Counsel representing the petitioner assailed letter No.789/CI/O/Apnt.-Compte/005/09/Estt. dated 21st April 2016, by which the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the purported ground of suppression of facts. It was contended such allegation was baseless as the petitioner disclosed in his initial pro forma that his mother possessed a B.A. degree and was employed in a private cement company and had further disclosed she had left the job in 2004. That the allegation of suppression was unfounded, arbitrary and suffered from patent, non- application of mind.
15. It was urged that the order of rejection was a non-speaking, cryptic and unintelligible order devoid of any reasoning, any order which did not disclose reasons, was argued to be liable to judicial chastisement. The principles of natural justice required an administrative authority must record reasons while rejecting or legitimate claim more, so whether the consequence affected livelihood. An unintelligible order could not be considered a reasoned decision. It betrayed absence of clarity and violated a constitutional guarantee of fairness in administrative action.
16. The Learned Counsel representing the petitioner submitted compassionate appointment was not a matter of charity but an ameliorative measure intended to relieve the immediate financial hardship of a bereaved family. Reliance had been placed upon the decision of the 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015)7 SCC 412, where it was reiterated that payment of family, pension or terminal benefits could not substitute the obligation to consider dependent family members for compassionate appointment.
17. It was emphasized that the scheme governing compassionate appointment nowhere provided receipt of terminal benefits of family, pension, disentitled the candidate. Rather the scheme required the authority to examine whether the family was dependent upon the income of the deceased employee and whether the family was in immediate need of assistance. In the present case, the petitioner's mother's income from tailoring and leather bag stitching was approximately Rs.800/- per month and the petitioner's paltry earnings of Rs.700/- from private tuition could never sustain the family. The scheme contemplates relief where the family is devoid of any stable source of income and the petitioner's case is emblematic of such need.
18. The Learned Counsel as aforesaid highlighted under G.O. No.30- EMP/1M-10/2000 dated 21st August, 2002 relied upon by the respondent, compassionate appointment was admissible to the wife, son, daughter near department of the disease employee, provided the family was in immediate need of assistance. The petitioner squarely fell within this category as the sole dependent son.
19. It was further submitted the sudden disappearance of the family's breadwinner could only be absolved by providing prompt compassionate appointment. Instead, the respondents acted in a highly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Although 6 out of 8 candidates mentioned in the same memorandum dated 10th January 2011 were granted 8 compassionate appointment, the petitioner alone was left out without justifiable reason. Such discrimination is unreasonable violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and called for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restoring the petitioner's infringed right.
20. Finally, the Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted the State and its instrumentalities were bound to act with fairness, transparency and reason. The prolonged delay for more than a decade, the absence of disclosure of reasons, the baseless allegation of suppression and the discriminatory exclusion of the petitioner together constitute arbitrary state action, warranting, judicial interference.
21. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-
i. In Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"... 20. In Balbir Kaur v. SAIL [(2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] , while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to. Rejecting that contention in para 13, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 503) "13. ... But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the breadearner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available to the family -- this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the 1 (2015) 7 SCC 412 9 breadearner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the breadearner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation."
21. Referring to SAIL case [(2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] , the High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the Bank that the respondents' family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
22. Considering the scope of the scheme "Dying in Harness Scheme 1993" then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant Bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference.
23. So far as the cases in Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 267 of 2008 are concerned, they are similar and those respondents are similarly placed and the appeals preferred by the Bank are liable to be dismissed. The appellant Bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 266 and 267 of 2008.
24. In the result, all the appeals preferred by the appellant Bank are dismissed and the appellant Bank is directed to consider the case of the respondents for compassionate appointment as per the Scheme which was in vogue at the time of death of the employee concerned. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs."
10ii. In Kamalesh Adgiri vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"... 10. Subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh, [2006 (111) FLR 77 (SC).] the Supreme Court while distinguishing the judgment rendered in Balbir Kaur's case and the other judgment previously decided in other cases held that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and it is a matter of discretion and this must conform to the scheme framed by the employer. We are of the view that the said decision of the Supreme Court nowhere decided that the payment of terminal benefit received by the dependent of deceased, employee could be correlated with the compassionate appointment, in absence of any provision of the scheme. It appears factually in that case that the Supreme Court found that the Union Bank of India had formulated the scheme and under that scheme one has to has fulfil the conditions, then and only then appointment could be made. In the scheme it has been specifically provided that terminal benefit could be one of the factors for granting compassionate appointment.
11. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision in Union Bank of India's case and also the other judgements of the same Court relied on therein viz. Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case, [1994 (68) FLR 1191 (SC).] Kunty Tiivary's case [(2004) 7 SCC 271.] and Punjab National Bank's case [(2004) 7 SCC 265.] are not for the proposition of the law that in absence of any provision in the scheme, the payment of terminal benefit could be a factor for refusing compassionate appointment.
12. We do not find any logic or rationale of this ground to be a factor for rejection in this case. If it is accepted as rightly urged by Mr. Banerjee then no compassionate appointment can be given under any circumstance because some amount of terminal benefit is always granted. Therefore, so long it is not specifically mentioned in the scheme by the Government terminal benefit cannot be a factor 2 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 901 11 for refusing the prayer for compassionate appointment. We have already quoted the conditions for granting compassionate appointment then mentioned in the scheme by the Government.
Nowhere it provides that in the event substantial amount of terminal benefit is granted to the family concerned compassionate appointment would be refused. In this case it has to be seen that on death whether the family was depending upon the income of the deceased or not. It is stated on oath that the terminal benefit which had been received already, had been spent out because of the marriage of the daughter and there is hardly anything left for keeping this family survived. The meagre amount of pension during the life time of the widow will not keep the family survived. At the time when the application was made the family really needed this help as there was no bread earner in the family nor the family was with joint mess of other relation. As such the order of the Secretary is not sustainable. The learned Tribunal unfortunately did not proceed with the matter with the above direction, and has casually accepted the order of the Secretary concerned. This, in our view, is not rendering justice in a case of this nature. Thus, the application is allowed. Order of the Secretary is set aside, so also the order of the Tribunal. The Government is directed to give appointment, subject to fulfilling of other conditions, in the vacancy which was asked to be kept reserved by interim order of the learned Tribunal, if available right now within two months from the date of communication of this order. If not then in any suitable vacancy at any other place and it must be done within three months from the date of communication of this order."
iii. In Airports Authority of India & ors. vs. Provash Besai & Anr. 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"... 43. The judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice but because it is capable of doing justice and it is expected to do so. [See Collector (LA) v. Katiji [Collector 3 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 1375 12 (LA) v. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 : (1987) 167 ITR 471 : (1987) 66 STC 228 : (1987) 62 Comp Cas 370] .] Even, otherwise constitutional courts are duty-bound to dispense justice in deserving cases without being desultory with technical objections as technicalities are always to step down and substantive justice must prevail. The resistance to defeat a legal right of a litigant by inviting attention to the many lapses in the procedure adopted by the writ petitioner and lack of promptitude of the litigant, incidentally in this case widow and son of a sweeper, in espousing its cause and expecting the constitutional courts to give importance to such factors overlooking the many glaring faults and breaches of their statutory duties if accepted would give premium to an inexcusable conduct of the employer. It would in effect mean and signify to borrow the expressions from The Pleasures of Philosophy by Will Durant of the proclamation by Thrasymachus of Plato's Republic that "the 'unjust' is lord over the truly simple, and 'just' and the 'just' is always loser by comparison". The purpose of the scheme was to rescue the family from mental, physical, emotional and financial distress and to improve the human living condition of the family and this gets defeated due to manifest "unjust" conduct of the AAI. Instead of emotional and financial support and hand holding AAI was in a denial mode.
44. The scheme for compassionate appointment is a social beneficial scheme introduced and can be seen as a force of circumstances that tends to destroy equality that the force of legislation must always tend to maintain. It is a principle espoused by Rousseau and recognised in our constitution to advance social justice. As succinctly put by the Hon'ble Justice J.M. Shelat, former Judge, Supreme Court of India "to discriminate positively in favour of the weak may sometimes be promotion of genuine equality".
45. The writ petitioners approached the authorities in time. It was a manifest arbitrary act of the employer in denying employment. The writ petitioners have been denied a decent livelihood and a timely action would have put the family in a better position. The contention 13 that WP 1 is presently working as a contractual employee in the airport under a contractor apart from being substantiated is no consolation and if such excuse is accepted it would only embolden an employer to act unfairly and arbitrarily and an irreparable injury and injustice would be caused to WP 1 whose legal right to employment is unquestionable. Justice will be buried and a loser at the end of the day. It is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. All persons similarly placed have been given appointment under the same scheme. All equals are to be treated alike. The conduct of AAI shocks the conscience of the court more so as AAI is an instrumentality of the State.
46. One could not possibly expect the son of sweeper WP 1 to know the consequence of delay in approaching the court for not being communicated of the decision of AAI for redressal of his grievance, lest it might be contended against WP 1 that immediacy is lost and the family is no more in need of any financial assistance. The employer would expect the court to turn a blind eye for all its inactions. The legal aphorism that ignorance of law is no excuse or a defence may not be applicable in all circumstances as we cannot lose sight of the economic and social strata of a litigant. The concept of delay and laches to deny the relief to a litigant has to be considered contextually after taking into consideration his social and economic background. The scheme was consciously framed to take care of their needs. They are the beneficiaries.
47. Under such circumstances we affirm the order under appeal. We direct the authorities to give appointment to writ petitioner no.1 within four weeks in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge. We further direct payment of Rs.3,51,000/- illegally withheld along with simple interest at the rate of 10 per cent p.a. from January 2008 till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within four weeks from date."
22. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.3 to 5 submitted at the outset, that the compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner 14 was governed by a structured statutory scheme and several Government notifications issued from time to time and that the answering respondents acted strictly in accordance with such scheme. The State Government was the sanctioning authority, while the Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited functioned only as the implementing authority bound by the eligibility parameters, prescribed therein.
23. It was contended that compassionate appointment was not a vested right, nor an alternative method of public recruitment. It was a narrow and exceptional departure from the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India intended solely to provide immediate succour to a bereaved family facing sudden and extreme financial destitution due to the death of the breadwinner in Government service. Consequently, the scheme must be constituted strictly and eligibility must be rigorously assessed.
24. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.3 to 5 further submitted the petitioner demonstrably failed to meet the essential criteria prescribed under 2002 Notifications particularly G.O. No. 303-EMP/1M- 10/2000 dated 21st August, 2002 which mandated that compassionate appointment was permissible only if the decrease in family income constituted financial condition "so acute as to make the appointment essential and immediate".
25. It was further submitted that at the time of employee's death on 29.09.2002, the petitioner's mother, Smt. Kabita Sen was gainfully employed in a private company. Reference was made to the Enquiry Committee Report dated 23.03.2004, which assessed the family income shortly after the death of the father of the petitioner and concluded that 15 monthly income was Rs.8,700/-, not a constraint for Smt. Kabita Sen to maintain two members in her family with the present family income. Such finding communicated by the Managing Director of GCGSCL signified the family was not in immediate financial distress.
26. It was further submitted that the petitioner's family received substantial terminal benefits upon the employee's death. Moreover, Smt. Kabita Sen later received a VRS package of Rs.5 lakhs upon retiring from Bargarh Cement Limited on 14.05.2004. A holistic assessment of the family's financial condition, considering the salary, the terminal dues and family pension and the substantial VRS amount unequivocally established that the family was never in state of immediate financial destitution required to qualify under the compassionate appointment scheme.
27. It was further submitted by the Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.3 and 5 that the petitioner and his mother intentionally suppressed material facts, crucial for determining financial eligibility, specially they failed to disclose the mother's employment at the time of the father's death and her subsequent employment in a private establishment (Mrs. Mascot Enterprises). The receipt of substantial VRS benefits by the mother and the accurate family income, including earnings from employment and VRS.
28. It was pointed out that while the 2004 application acknowledged certain employment, the subsequent application falsely declared the mother to be unemployed by concealing the true financial condition of the family. The VRS amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was also deliberately withheld from disclosure and came to light only during enquiries conducted in 2011. The Learned Advocate as aforesaid submitted such suppression was not a 16 mere irregularity, but a substantive misrepresentation rendering the petitioner disentitled to equitable relief. A person who approaches the Court must do so with clean hands and deliberate concealment of material facts, invalidates the petitioner from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
29. It was further argued that one of the cardinal requirements of compassionate appointment was that the application must be filed within a reasonable time from the date of death, as the object was to address immediate financial crisis. The erstwhile employee expired on 29.09.2002, yet the petitioner's first application was filed in 2004 and a second application in 2007 long after the immediacy crisis ceased to exist. Thus, the claim was void ab initio for failure to meet the prescribed time limit.
30. It was further clarified that the recommendation in Memo No.30- CI/O/Apnt.-Compte/005/09/Estt. Dated 10.01.2011 was issued before the authorities discovered the full extent of the petitioner's suppression. Once the authorities realised the family was not in financial distress and that material facts had been concealed, the recommendation carried no legal validity. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner's candidature thereafter was duly justified.
31. It was further contended that the impugned rejection letter dated 21.04.2016 was issued lawfully after thorough examination of financial records and suppression. The decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable which was the inevitable consequence of the petitioner's ineligibility.
32. It was further submitted that earlier writ proceedings, wherein the Court directed the authorities to communicate the result of the petitioner's 17 application did not amount to a finding of eligibility or direction to appoint the petitioner. The authorities complied with the Court's Order and informed him of his ineligibility yet the petitioner had again approached this Hon'ble Court on the same facts which had been an abuse of process and rendered the present writ petition not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with cost.
33. The Learned Advocate as aforesaid further submitted as per the aforesaid Memo, No.1872-GEN-MIS/015/2013 dated 16.07.2015 there existed no requirement for appointment in Group 'C' or Group 'D' categories within GGCGSCL due to lack of sanctioned vacancies, and therefore no compassionate appointment could have been granted.
34. The Learned Advocate representing the State submitted, at the very threshold the concept of compassionate appointment, both in principle and practice was neither job inheritance, nor a mood for ensuring employment equivalent to that held by the deceased employee. Reliance was placed on Halsbury's Laws of India, Volume-18, which clarified that the fundamental objective of compassionate appointment was solely to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family, enabling them to tide over the sudden financial crisis arising from the death of the breadwinner.
35. It was submitted that compassionate appointment was an exception curved out from the general rule of equality in public employment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It did not constitute a vested right or an alternative mode of recruitment. It was a consideration dependent entirely upon rules, schemes and instructions and could not be claimed as a legacy or entitlement at any point of time. Reference was 18 drawn to the judgments in Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus state of Haryana & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138.
36. The Learned Advocate representing the State, elaborated as per as per Halsbury's Laws of India to address immediate financial hardship, the overriding consideration is whether the family is in immediate need of assistance to survive the crisis. Mere death does not automatically entitle a dependent to employment. The financial condition must be assessed holistically and compassionate appointment may be precluded if a family member is already earning.
37. Applications must be filed within a reasonable time as compassionate appointment is intended for immediate relief. Applications filed long after the crisis period are typically rejected. A time limit is often prescribed.
38. The Learned Advocate representing the State submitted in the instant case the documents placed on record, including those filed by the petitioner himself and the enquiry committee reports clearly revealed that the petitioner's family was not in a condition of immediate financial destitution, either at the time of the death of the employee or thereafter. At the time of the employee's demise on 29.09.2002, the petitioner's mother Smt. Kabita Sen was working in a private company. The Enquiry Committee's Report dated 23.03.2004 assessed the family income comprising the mother's salary and anticipated pension and concluded that the monthly family income was Rs.8,700/-, which was above the threshold prescribed by the Notifications governing compassionate appointment, it was specifically recorded that "it may not be difficult for Smt. Sen to maintain her member family with the present family income". 19
39. Further, the family received substantial terminal benefits from the State upon the employee's death. Subsequently Smt. Kabita Sen received a considerable VRS payment of Rs.5 lakhs from Bargarh Cement Limited. Thus, the financial status displayed being above the margin contemplated by the compassionate appointment scheme.
40. The Learner Advocate representing the State stressed the compassionate appointment schemes must be strictly construed. Any deviation from prescribed norms undermined the scheme's purpose and violated the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity. Compassionate appointment is to be confined strictly to mitigate immediate financial hardship. It is not intended for providing "endless compassion".
41. The Learned Advocate representing the State submitted that delay defeated the object of compassionate appointment. The petitioner's first application was filed in 2004 long after the death of the employee in 2002 and was rightly rejected due to ineligibility. Nevertheless, the petitioner again filed a second application in 2007, which was void ab initio for violating the prescribed requirement that the application be made within two years of death.
42. The Learned Advocate representing the State further submitted that the petitioner and his mother suppressed material financial facts, including the mother's salaried employment at the time of the death of her husband, receipt of substantial VRS benefits, actual family income, including earnings, and terminal benefits. Such suppression appearing particularly in the 2007 pro forma amounted to mala fide intention to mislead the authorities. A person who seeks equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and any writ petition tainted with 20 misrepresentation is liable to be dismissed. It was further clarified that the recommendation contained in the aforesaid memo dated 10.01.2011 was issued before the authorities discovered the full extent of the suppression. Once the misrepresentation and the absence of genuine financial hardship surfaced, the recommendation was rightly withdrawn, and the petitioner was informed of his ineligibility. It was further submitted that the petitioners earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P. 2538 (W) of 2013 was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to intimate the outcome of his application. The order did not recognize any vested right or confer any direction to appoint the petitioner upon compliance. The petitioner was notified of his ineligibility however the petitioner had again approached this Court on the very same grounds rendering the present petition, not maintainable.
43. The Learned Advocate representing the State distinguished the following judgments:-
Canara Bank &Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 i. This judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this instant case. The facts are wholly different as in: there was no suppression of facts in Canara Bank &Anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412, but in this instant matter, the petitioner intentionally supressed key facts at the onset of the whole process.
ii. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a different view the same in later judgments, being N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka &Ors. Reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653; Also, there are other contra views of the Hon'ble High Courts and 21 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various other judgments that have not been dealt with in the said judgment; (Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138).
a) KamaleshAdgiri Vs. State of West Bengal [2008 SCC Online Cal 901]
b) Airports Authority of India 86 Ors. -Vs-ProvashBesai&Anr. [2025 SCC Online Cal 1375) i. Both the above judgments are similar in nature, and hence are being dealt with simultaneously.
ii. These judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this instant case.
iii. Major difference in facts- In KamaleshAdgiri (Supra), the petitioner was solely dependent on the deceased employee, but in the instant case, the Petitioner Ayan Sen was not solely dependent on the deceased employee; his mother was also a bread-winner besides his father (the deceased employee).
iv. Crucially, there is no indication that those cases involved deliberate, material suppression significant of income/assets (like employment status and large VRS payments) as is evident in the present case. Any potentially liberal interpretation of hardship or procedural aspects in those cases cannot be applied here, where the Petitioner's claim is fundamentally tainted by concealment. v. It is important to note that Para 8 of KamaleshAdgiri (Supra) reads as: "While scrutinising order of rejection of the Secretary it appears to us that the said official has not even adverted to the said criteria of the old scheme. He has triedto read the spirit of the same rather 22 than to read expressed stipulations and directions contained therein. He has no jurisdiction to do so. He has to apply the departmental direction in terms of the express words not to understand the spirit of the same.
vi. In the instant case, the ineligibility of the Petitioner is according to the expressed stipulations, directions and, criteria as laid down in the departmental direction being Memo No. No. 303-EMP/1M- 10/2000 dated 21.08.2002 -> Para A.1 that appointment is permissible only if "...the fall in income due to the death of the Govt. servant makes the Financial condition of his/her family so acute as to make the appointment essential and immediate. And also that: "None except wife/son/daughter/near relation of the deceased employee and solely dependent on the earnings of the deceased employee, shall be eligible for consideration for such employment." Petitioner was not solely dependent on the deceased employee, his mother was also an earning member of the family. vii. It is further submitted that any potentially liberal interpretation of hardship or procedural aspects in those cases cannot be applied herein, where the Petitioner's claim is fundamentally tainted by concealment. The assessment of hardship must be based on facts. In the instant case, the facts, once revealed, clearly place the Petitioner's family outside the scope of "immediate destitution"
under the 2002 scheme.
c) Reliance was cast on the decision cited in Canara Bank v.
Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 290), 23 "25. The first sub-issue is in relation to the lapse of time since the respondent's father passed away. It has been in excess of two decades. It does not require anyone to put on a magnifying glass here to assess the time that has been taken for the application of the respondent for compassionate appointment to be finally decided. The parties have reached the third tier in the second round. One of the foremost factors for appointment on compassionate ground is that the same should be offered at the earliest. Unless appointment is made soon after the need to mitigate hardship arises, tiding over the immediate financial crisis owing to (i) sudden premature and untimely death of the deceased employee or (ii) medical incapacitation resulting in the employee's unfitness to continue in service, for which benevolence is shown by offering an appointment may not exist and thereby the very object of such appointment could stand frustrated.......
..... 29. The second sub-issue pertains to the real objective sought to be achieved by offering compassionate appointment. We have noticed the objectives of the scheme of 1993 and construe such objectives as salutary for deciding any claim for compassionate appointment. The underlying idea behind compassionate appointment in death-in-harness cases appears to be that the premature and unexpected passing away of the employee, who was the only bread earner for the family, leaves the family members in such penurious condition that but for an appointment on compassionate ground, they may not survive.
There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying-in-harness which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has its own peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. It is only in "hand-to-mouth"
cases that a claim for compassionate appointment ought to be considered and granted, if at all other conditions are satisfied. Such "hand-to-mouth" cases would include cases where the family of the deceased is 'below poverty line' and struggling to pay basic 24 expenses such as food, rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any steady source of sustenance. This has to be distinguished from a mere fall in standard of life arising out of the death of the bread earner.
30. The observation in KuntiTiwary (supra) noted above seems to assume significance and we draw inspiration therefrom in making the observation that no appointment on compassionate ground ought to be made as if it is a matter of course or right, being blissfully oblivious of the laudable object of any policy/scheme in this behalf.
31. Thus, examination of the financial condition to ascertain whether the respondent and his mother were left in utter financial distress because of the death of the bread earner is not something that can be loosely brushed aside......."
It is also stated and submitted that another matter on a similar set of circumstances being State of West Bengal-vs- Srimati Binapani Murmu is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as of date."
44. The Learned Advocate representing the State further relied on the following decisions:-
i. A. K Raja v. Karnataka Electricity Board (1992) 1LLJ 129;
ii. Susheela B Bhakta v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn.
(1998) 3 LLJ (Supp) 388;
iii. G C Nagaraju v APSRTC, Managing Director, Hyderabad (1996) 3 LJ (Supp) 973) iv. Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; v. State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766;
vi. MumtazYunusMulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384; vii. State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari, (2023) SCC Online SC
185. viii. Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289. 25 ix. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Anusree K.B., (2022) SCC Online SC 1518.
x. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653. xi. State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661 xii. I.G (Karmik) &Ors. -vs- Prahlad Mani Tripathi [(2007) 6 SCC 162] xiii. District Basic Education Officer &Anr. -vs- Dhananjai Kumar Shukla [(2008)3 SCC 481] xiv. State Bank of India vs. Sheo Shankar Tewari, 2019 xv. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs Anil Badyakar, (2009) 13 SCC 112 xvi. State of Maharashtra vs. Ms. MadhuriMarutiVidhate, (2022) SCC Online SC 1327.
xvii. N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka &Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 617 xviii. Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 290)"
45. The relevant portion of the Notification being No.303-EMP/1M-10/2000 dated 21st of August, 2002 published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary Part-I replicated as follows:-
".......
A. GENERAL PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT EXEMPTED CATEGORIES :-
1. Dependents of persons who died in harness : None except wife/son/daughter/near relation to the deceased employee and solely dependent on the earnings of the deceased employee, shall be eligible for consideration for such employment. The benefit will be admissible if the family, left behind by the deceased employee, is in immediate need of assistance and such employment on compassionate ground is absolutely essential to support the family of the deceased. A person belonging to a completely separate family shall not be treated as solely dependent on the deceased employee for the purpose of such employment on compassionate ground.26
The wife/son/daughter/near relation of an employee who died in harness, may apply to the appointing authority through the Head of the Office of the employee in a prescribed form as per Part I & II of Annexure 'A' along with a copy of death certificate praying for employment to support the family of the deceased employee. On receipt of such application the appointing authority shall form an enquiry committee of senior officials not less than three in number. The committee so formed shall make an enquiry about the genuineness of the prayer as well as the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and submit a report as per Annexure 'A' to the appointing authority. The appointing authority will forward the case together with his views, recorded in Annexure 'A', to the Administrative Department concerned for consideration. If it is decided by the administrative department to be a fit case for offering employment on compassionate ground a suitable vacancy may be identified under the appointing authority concerned for providing employment subject to the condition that the candidate satisfies the qualification and other requirements prescribed for recruitment to the post. If a suitable vacancy is not available under the appointing authority concerned the administrative department may identify suitable vacancy under some other appointing authority under its administrative control for providing employment. The administrative department will forward the case with suitable directions, to the appointing authority, in whose establishment the vacancy has been identified. In the event of non-availability of berth for accommodating such a case the administrative department concerned will have to move other departments for suitable berth. When a suitable vacancy is available in some other department to accommodate the case the Administrative Department will forward the case along with relevant papers to that department for further action. The Department having vacancy in the Exempted Category of posts will provide employment to the wife/son/daughter/near relation of the employee, who died in harness, subject to observance of relevant conditions and formalities.27
2. Dependants of employees who retired being incapacitated : (1) The benefit of the offer of employment on compassionate ground to a dependent wife/son/daughter/near relation of an employee retiring prematurely owing to being disabled permanently or otherwise incapacitated rendering him/her unfit to continue in service will be available, if and only if such employee fulfils all the following conditions :-
(i) On premature retirement he/she would not be entitled to the full pensionary benefits to which he/she would have been entitled if he/she had retired at his/her normal age of superannuation;
(ii) He/she has fully exhausted all kinds of leave with pay including commuted leave on medical ground;
(iii) He/she had two years of service or more left to reach the age of superannuation; and
(iv) The financial condition of the family is so acute as to make the appointment essential consequent upon the fall in income due to such retirement.
(2) None except a son/daughter/near relation who is/was solely dependent on the earnings of the incapacitated employee, will be eligible for such appointment on compassionate ground. A person belonging to a completely separate family shall not be treated as solely dependent on the employee for the purpose of such employment on compassionate ground.
............"
46. The communication of the petitioner addressing to the Managing Director, The Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited, inter alia, stated as follows:-
"........
Respected Sir, With due respect and humble submission I beg to bring to your kind notice that I am the only son of Late Hemanta Kumar Sen the deceased employee of your esteemed organization. In this 28 connection, I beg to lay down the following facts for favour of your kind and sympathetic consideration:-
That my father Late Hemanta Kumar Sen while working in your esteemed Organisation had been suffering from illness for over one year and unfortunately expired on 29.09.02. He served for the organization for over 37 years.
That my father had such a personal saving which is too meager to meet the expenditure towards his prolong treatment and that we the surviving members (mother and son) had to depend on financial loan from different sources for meeting the treatment expenses which are yet to repay the sources concerned. At present, we are absolutely penniless and passing our days in all most starvation having been over head and ears in those debts. In this juncture our future is gleam and directionless.
That in these exigencies I beg to appeal to your kindself to kindly ponder over my humble submissions above and kindly considering me for an employment in a post commensurate with my qualification in your esteemed organization on compassionate ground which will be immense help to me and my widow mother to save our lives from the impending ruin. I am a Commerce Graduate having diploma in Computer from C.M.C. and a young man of 26 years with energetic and acting havit. I furnish my biodata in support of the candidature prayed for as enclosed for favour of your kind perusal. Earlier I applied for the employment under your kind disposal of which reference no.452/Admn./36/GC/2005, dated 30.09.05 to the Dy. Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal, Commerce & Industries, Writers' Buildings, Kolkata-1.
In fine, I may kindly be permitted to state that if I am, provided with the employment, I shall share no pains to the due discharge of my duties and undergo all sorts of hardships for the entire satisfaction of my superiors for the lofty and humanitarian services so long it will cherish in my mind and oblige. For this act of your benevolence, I shall remain ever grateful to you, Sir. Soliciting your kind consideration, with profound regards, 29 Dated, 50, Sukumar Ghosh Rd., Belghoria 2nd Railway Siding, Kol-83, Yours faithfully (AYAN SEN)"
47. The communication of the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Commerce and Industries Department, Establishment Brach, 4, Camac Street, Kolkata 700 016 being No.30-CI/O/Apnt.- Compte/005/09/Estt. Dated Kolkata, the 10th January, 2011 addressing to the Managing Director, Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited, 12A, Park Street, Kolkata - 700 071 replicated as follows:-
"........
Sub : Appointment on Compassionate Ground.
The undersigned is directed by order of the Governor to say that the Governor has been pleased to consider the candidature of the following applicants for appointment to the vacant posts in the respective Pay Bands under his office as mentioned against their names on compassionate ground in terms of Labour Departments Order No.30-Emp. Dated 02.04.08 read with No.114-Emp dated 14.08.2008, No.82-Emp. Dt. 10.06.2009 and No.303-Emp dt. 21.08.02.
He is requested to take further necessary action to appoint the candidates fulfilling all the conditions required for entry into the Govt. service under an intimation to this Deptts. immediately.
Name of
Sl. Name of the Post to be
the Address Pay Bands
No. candidate appointed
deceased
(1) Sri Sanjib Late 310, Mahesh Group 'D' P.B.-1 of
Guha Manick Lal Colony, P.O. Rs.4600-
Guha Mahesh, 16200/-
Serampore, plus Grade
Dist. Hooghly, Pay of
PIN - 712202. Rs.1,700/-
30
(2) Sri Bablu Late Bijoy C/O. Group 'D' P.B.-1 of
Maity Maity Kushkumar Rs.4600-
Ghosh, Vill - 16200/-
Nishchintapor plus Grade
e, P.O. Rajpur, Pay of
P.S. Sonarpur, Rs.1,700/-
Dist. 24-
Parganas
South,
Kolkata-
700150.
(3) Sri Prasenjit Late 146, Bandhab Lower P.B.-2 of
Chatterjee Sambhu Nagar Colony, Division Rs.5400/-
Nath Dum Dum Clerk to
Chatterjee Cantonment, Rs.25,200/
Kolkata-28. - + Grade
Pay
Rs.2600/-
(4) Sri Vicky Late Badri 13/3C, Lower P.B.-2 of
Shaw Prosad Patwar Bagan Division Rs.5400/-
Shaw Lane, Kolkata- Clerk to
700009. Rs.25,200/
- + Grade
Pay
Rs.2600/-
(5) Sri Late Patit Vill-Habal Group 'D' P.B.-1 of
Premanand Paban Ganda, P.O. Rs.4600-
a Nayak Nayak Dashipur, P.S. 16200/-
Rajkanika, plus Grade
Dist. Pay of
Kendrapara, Rs.1,700/-
Orissa
(6) Sri Ayan Late 50, Sukumar Lower P.B.-2 of
Sen Hemanta Ghosh Road, Division Rs.5400/-
Kumar Sen Balghoria, 2nd Clerk to
Railway Rs.25,200/
Siding, - + Grade
Kolkata- Pay
700083 Rs.2600/-
(7) Sri Sambhu Late 2/H/6, Group 'D' P.B.-1 of
Mukherjee Mangal Bipradas Rs.4600-
Mukherjee Street, 16200/-
Kolkata- plus Grade
700009 Pay of
Rs.1,700/-
31
(8) Sri Bhola Late Kesto 2/1, Sir Group 'D' P.B.-1 of
Das Das Gurudas Rs.4600-
Road, 16200/-
Kolkata-11 plus Grade
Pay of
Rs.1,700/-
This issues with the approval of Hon'ble M.I.C., C&I. Department.
Sd/-
Assistant Secretary Kolkata, the 10th January, 2011.
........"
48. The report of the Managing Director, Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited in connection with W.P No. 2538 (W) of 2013 is replicated hereinbelow:-
"BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA W.P No. 2538 (W) of 2013 Sri Ayan Sen, Petitioner Vs. The State of West Bengal & Others In compliance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta, I humbly submit the report before His Lordship's kind consideration:-
1. That the Assistant Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department, Govt. of West Bengal vide his communication dated 10th day of January, 2011 conveyed the Managing Director, Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited the recommendation of appointment of eight candidates under died in harness category to the vacant posts of Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited. The said letter is annexed and marked as Annexure-"A".
2. That on 5th day of March 2011, the Managing Director, Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited had issued a note after being informed by the Commerce & Industries department that the mother of the applicant was an employee of M/s Mascot Company and that she had taken VRS. The Managing Director further noted 32 that no papers regarding her payment of VRS benefit were available in the file. He therefore, asked to ascertain from the mother of the applicant, Smt. Kabita Sen, all relevant details and to record views before issuing Police Verification Report (PVR). As the Managing Director felt that this aspect was important and directed to complete the process by 10th day of March 2011.
3. That on 7th day of March 2011 at 10 A.M, the mother of the applicant, Smt. Kabita Sen was called for to appear before the General Manager, Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited to clarify the issues relating to her employment in M/s Mascot Cement Company or elsewhere. On 08/03/2011, the Deputy Manger (Finance & Accounts) of Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited recorded the findings as per instructions of the General Manager as the Deputy Manager (Finance & Accounts) was present during the proceedings when the information was clarified by the mother of the applicant, i.e. Smt. Kabita Sen. It was recorded on that date that Smt. Kabita Sen had other source of income amounting to Rs 800/- per month apart from the monthly family pension received from Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited. Her son also used to earn Rs.700/- per month from private tuition. Smt. Kabita Sen resides in her own house. Regarding the particulars about her past employment, Smt. Sen stated that she had worked in a cement company for a period of over 20 years. She was compelled to take VRS because she had expressed her unwillingness to accept a transfer posting to Orissa. In March, 2004, she joined to M/s Mascot Company at New Alipore, Kolkata. At the time of interrogations, Smt. Kabita Sen submitted two copies of documents, one a letter from M/s Mascot Company dated 18/03/2004 and another letter no.BCLPNL2528 dated 14/05/2004 from M/s Bargarh Cement Limited in corroboration of her statement.
However, Smt. Kabita Sen could not ascertain the amount received by her as Gratuity and two months' travelling allowance from the cement company. She submitted that in Mascot Enterprise she served for roughly eighteen months with a monthly salary of 33 Rs.5,000/-. A copy of the relevant note sheet of both dated 05/03/2011 and 08/03/2011 and the document submitted by her during interrogations are enclosed as Annexure-"B" collectively.
4. That the case of employment of Sri Ayan Sen had been reprocessed in the light of the submission made by his mother before the General Manager, Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited on 07/03/2011. A detailed calculation sheet had been computed by the Deputy Manager (Finance & Accounts), Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited based on the materials on record as stipulated in the Labour Department's Memo no. 30-Emp that on the date of computation dated-21/03/2011 the total family income of Sri Ayan Sen was Rs.13,612/- only. The computation of the initial salary of a Group-C employee on that date including Medical Allowance had also been computed, and it was found to be Rs.13,560/- only and it was established that the total family income of the applicant exceeds the minimum initial salary of a Group-C employee.
5. That the General Manager, Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited vides his letter dated 3rd day of May 2011 under memo no. Per/231/548 had informed the Assistant Secretary, Commerce & Industries department, Govt. of West Bengal referring his order no.30-CI/O/Apnt.-Compte/005/09/Estt. dated 10/01/2011 that the family income of the applicant after inclusion of the VRS amount and other incomes, render the applicant ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground. A Copy of that letter along-with the computation sheet are enclosed as Annexure-"C" collectively.
5a. That under the Govt. Order 30-EMP dated 02/04/2008 it has been clearly stated while computing the monthly income of the family, the monthly income of the dependants of the ex-employee named in the application need to be considered and hence the Commerce & Industries department on 03/06/2011 had taken the decision for not providing employment to Sri Ayan Sen and directed to conduct an enquiry against the Committee Members' who had 34 recommended the case for employment of Sri Ayan Sen on compassionate ground before the Commerce & Industries department vide memo no.743-CI/Apnt-Compte/005/09/Estt. dated 14/06/2011. A copy of that letter and the order in note sheet dated 3/6/2011 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-"D" collectively.
6. That the Commerce & Industries Department had taken the decision on 03/06/2011 on the basis of the material irregularity and material suppression of facts namely, non-inclusion of the VRS amount in the prescribed application format (Part-II) under serial no. 1(VI) also under serial no.3 (column-8) where the word "un- employed" instead of "retired" had been inserted. A photocopy of the said application is enclosed and marked as Annexure-"E".
7. That the Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited acted in accordance with the departmental rules and in consonance with the direction of the department by not providing employment to the applicant under died in harness category.
8. That the fact of rejection of employment under compassionate ground of Sri Ayan Sen has not been officially conveyed to the incumbent in due time and for this act of omission on the part of the Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited, I beg an unconditional apology before the Hon'ble Court.
Sd/-
Rajeev Kumar Managing Director Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Ltd."
49. The Order dated 03.09.2015 passed in W.P. 2538(W) of 2013 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, inter alia, replicated as follows:-
"........
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, it appears that the petitioner is essentially seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the 'died-in-harness' category.35
It transpires that on 10th January, 2011, the concerned Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, issued a memorandum addressed to the Managing Director of Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited, wherefrom it appears that the Governor was pleased to consider the candidature of some applicants (including the writ petitioner) for appointment to the vacant posts on compassionate ground in terms of four Labour Department Orders. However, the concerned authority of Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited subsequently found that the writ petitioner had furnished certain false statements and suppressed material facts, all of which are contained in a NoteSheet, which is annexed to the report in the form of an affidavit filed earlier in Court. While it is true that nothing appearing in a Note-Sheet cannot be construed as an order, nevertheless, since certain relevant facts were not brought to the notice of the concerned authority of the State by Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited.
At this stage, it may not be out place to observe that an applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular group/class of post as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground too, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that a claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. As a rule, public appointments should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment, but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement, upon taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases, the object is to enable the family to get over sudden 36 financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family (see Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in AIR 2012 SC 2294).
The observations of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, on the question whether payment of terminal/retiral benefits to the family can be taken into consideration while deciding a case for compassionate appointment was specifically negated by the Supreme Court in its latter decision rendered in the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein the Supreme Court examined the scope of employment on compassionate ground in a Scheme where a dependant of an employee was considered ineligible for the post, in a case where the family received terminal/retiral benefits above the ceiling limit. The Supreme Court held that the judgment rendered in Govind Prakash Verma (supra) was decided without considering its earlier judgments, which were binding on the Bench. The Supreme Court further held that the appointment has to be made considering the terms of the Scheme and in case a Scheme lays down a criterion, such criterion is required to be followed. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (supra) were reiterated in its latter decision rendered in Union of India & Anr. v. Shashank Goswami & Anr. (supra).
However, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, as stated above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon Greater Calcutta Gas Supply Corporation Limited to forward all relevant materials pertaining to the writ petitioner, which are in its record, to the concerned authority of the State, so that an appropriate decision is taken finally as to whether appointment on compassionate ground can be granted in favour of the writ petitioner or not. Once the concerned authority the State receives all relevant materials pertaining to the writ petitioner from Greater Calcutta Gas 37 Supply Corporation Limited, it shall take such decision as expeditiously as possible.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties."
50. In State of West Bengal vs Debabrata Tiwari &Ors.4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"Policy of compassionate appointment : The rationale
23. The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain. Further, a deceased employee does not always leave behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not mean economic death for his family? The State's obligation in this regard, confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate succour to such a family. Support for such a provision has been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India i.e. Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
24. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassionate appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of claims for compassionate appointment.
25. In SushmaGosain v. Union of India [SushmaGosain v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 662] , this Court observed that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the breadearner in 4 (2025) 5 SCC 712 38 the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.
26. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crisis is overcome.
27. In Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 31] ("Hakim Singh") this Court placed much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in which claims for compassionate appointment are made by the dependants and decided by the authority concerned. This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member.
Therefore, this Court held that it would not be justified in directing appointment for the claimants therein on compassionate grounds, 39 fourteen years after the death of the government employee. That such a direction would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession.
28. This Court in State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta [State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1165] held that in order for a claim for compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an employee who had served the State and died while in service. It was further observed that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be made available to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee.
29. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the breadearner vide Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar [Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 303] . When an appointment is made on compassionate grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi [I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 417] . In the same vein is the decision of this Court in MumtazYunusMulani v. State of Maharashtra [MumtazYunusMulani v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] , wherein it was declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.
30. In State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir [State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1195] , the facts before this Court were that the government employee (father of the 40 applicant therein) died in March 1987. The application was made by the applicant after four-and-half years in September 1991 which was rejected in March 1996. The writ petition was filed in June 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in July 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the said facts were relevant and material as they would demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable amount of time after the death of the government employee, would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for compassionate appointment.
31. In Shashi Kumar [State of H.P. v. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 542] , this Court speaking through Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the basis of the policy is that it recognises that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have been extracted as under : (SCC pp. 670-71, para 35) "35. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the writ petition before the High Court was instituted on 11-5-2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8-5-2007. On 15- 1-2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realised by way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition under Article 226 of the 41 Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , this Court has emphasised that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment."
32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
32.1. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives i.e. to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
32.2. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
32.3. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
32.4. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
32.5. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, 42 received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.
33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the breadearner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a breadwinner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate appointment would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration.
34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities' decision in the matter.
35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate 43 appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh [Haryana SEB v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 31] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.
36. Laches or undue delay, the blameworthy conduct of a person in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief was explained succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd [Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, (1874) LR 5 PC 221] as under : (LR pp. 239-40) "Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which 44 it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitations, the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy."
37. Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 117 : AIR 1967 SC 1450] . In the said case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
38. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566] this Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the following words : (SCC pp. 594-95, para 24)
24. ... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if 45 writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.
39. While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] ; NDMC v. Pan Singh [NDMC v. Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 398] .
40. Further, simply because the respondent-writ petitioners submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-2006, it cannot be said that they diligently pursued the matter and had not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari [State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 32] , wherein the following observations were made : (SCC p. 184, para 19) "19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time."
(emphasis supplied)
41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the 46 appellant State in dealing with their applications, the respondent- writ petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17-3-2015 [Debabrata Tiwari v. State of W.B., WPA No. 3243 of 2015, order dated 17-3-2015 (Cal)] , whereby the writ petition filed by some of the respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the respondent- writ petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
42. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the following observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa [Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (2024) 15 SCC 766 :
2022 SCC OnLine SC 684] , as to the manner in which the authorities must consider and decide applications for appointment on compassionate grounds : (SCC paras 14-16) "14. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds i.e. a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance to the family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely death, the authorities must consider and decide such applications for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of such completed applications.
15. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate 47 grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to approach the High Courts concerned seeking a writ of mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered at all as in the instant case.
16. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieved."
(emphasis supplied)
43. In Malaya Nanda Sethy case [Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (2024) 15 SCC 766 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684] , the claim of the appellant-applicant therein for compassionate appointment was directed by this Court to be considered by the competent authority. This Court noted that in the said case, there was no lapse on the 48 part of the appellant-applicant therein in diligently pursuing the matter. The delay in considering the application of the appellant therein was held to be solely attributable to the authorities of the State, and no part of it was occasioned by the appellant-applicant. Further, in the said case, the appellant-applicant was prejudiced not only because of the prolonged delay in considering his application but also by the fact that in the interim, the policy of the State governing compassionate appointment had changed to his detriment. Therefore, the facts of the said case were distinct from the facts involved herein. In the present case, the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners cannot be said to be blameless in that they did not pursue their matter with sufficient diligence. However, the observations made in the said case as to the manner in which applications for compassionate appointment are to be considered and disposed of are relevant to the present case.
44. As noted in Malaya Nanda Sethy case [Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (2024) 15 SCC 766 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684] , the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the authorities concerned but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the courts."
51. Under the facts and circumstances of the instant petition, the following issues arise for adjudication:-
(i) whether the petitioner fulfilled the essential condition of immediate financial destitution,
(ii) whether the petitioner suppressed material facts relevant to eligibility,
(iii) whether the recommendation stated in the Memo, 10 January 2011, confer any legally and forcible right,
(iv) whether the petition is maintainable in view of delay, suppression and prior adjudication in W.P. 2538(W) of 2013.49
52. Compassionate appointment is not a vested or hereditary right nor a post mortem avenue of recruitment. It is an exception carved out to prevent the family from immediate destitution. The jurisprudential foundation of the scheme demonstrates that the death of an employee by itself does not confer entitlement. The family must show a financial hardship so sudden and overwhelming that the appointment becomes essential and immediate. The scheme must be construed strictly as it carves out an exception to Articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India governing open merit based recruitment.
53. In the instant case, the record unmistakenably revealed the petitioner's mother to have been gainfully employed at the time of the employee's death. The family received salary, anticipated pension and regular income. The enquiry committee in 2004 expressively held that the family income was sufficient to maintain its members. The mother received substantial VRS compensation of Rs.5 lakhs in 2004. Thus, the precondition of sudden financial destitution, the bedrock of compassionate appointment was not satisfied. The financial threshold contemplated by the scheme was never breached. Therefore, the cornerstone of petitioner's claim collapses at its inception.
54. The petitioner's second application in 2007 declared his mother to be unemployed, despite her employment in a private company on the date of the death of her husband, her continued income stream from employment in a private company thereafter from another private company, after seeking VRS from the erstwhile private company, where she was an employee for a continuous period of 20 years, wherefrom substantial amount of Rs.5 lakhs was received earlier as VRS. This suppression was not minor or inadvertent. It went directly to affect the eligibility, for the existence of another earning member in the family and receipt of substantial terminal benefits had been primary factors in assessing financial distress. The second application in the year 2007 confronted the conditions of the compassionate appointment scheme which 50 stipulated the application to be filed within two years. The prior application filed in 2004 explicitly denoted considerable lapse of time in between the death of the father of the petitioner and the application to have been filed substantiating dearth of immediate financial necessity to satisfy 'penniless' condition. The petitioner time and again in the applications mentioned to have been 'penniless' suppressing the fact of the mother of the petitioner to have been in an employment on the date of demise of the father of the petitioner, therefore, to claim the status of the petitioner and his family comprising the employed mother to be penniless had been an absurd claim. The primary objective of a compassionate employment is to grant immediate relief to the family members of the deceased upon whose income the dependents survived and to grapple and surmount such financial constraint for further sustenance in life. The petitioner had filed the first application in the year 2004 after the demise of of his father in 2002, whereby the imminent relief for a deplorable financial crisis, whereby there had been immense monetary suffering due to the death of the sole income holder in the family had been obliterated, because the petitioner was not solely dependent on the income of his father, but also on the income of his mother who had been in employment at the relevant point of time.
55. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted in the prior application in the year 2004, seeking compassionate appointment, the petitioner had mentioned the status of his mother to have been employed in a private company eradicating alleged suppression of facts. The monthly income of the petitioner's mother at the relevant point of time was Rs.5000/-, which could not have referred the economic status to be 'penniless' as described in the applications both in the year 2004, and thereafter as replicated above. The equitable jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India demands transparency candour and good faith. Petitioner who misrepresents essential facts and defeat their right to claim equitable relief, cannot invoke the 51 discretionary jurisdiction of the Court and cannot claim parity with others who approach the system with clean hands, the employment of the mother of the petitioner, securing a substantial salary in the year 2002, supplemented by receiving considerable sum of money through VRS which she herself self- imposed and procreated on denial to serve at the place of a transfer. She further got engaged in another private firm. In the year 2007, the application filed by the petitioner, mentioned the status of the mother to be unemployed. However, the records revealed the petitioner's mother to have divulged to earn Rs.800/- through tailoring work and the petitioner to earn Rs.700/- through tuition. The application filed in the year 2007 exceeded the time period for granting compassionate appointment which necessarily should have been addressed within two years from the date of death of the petitioner's father.
56. Compassionate appointment must be sought and considered within the timeframe of proximate to the death of the employee because the scheme exists to address immediate financial distress. Prolonged delay frustrates the presumption of destitution. A claim, revived after years, becomes an attempt at securing employment rather than relief from crisis. The employee died in 2002, the first application was recorded in 2003-2004. The second application was filed in 2007. Recommendations were considered in 2011. The first writ petition was filed in 2013. The present petition was filed thereafter. This protracted litigation, spanning over a decade demonstrates that the family's financial condition did not deteriorate to a degree necessitating urgent relief. If the crisis were indeed acute and immediate, the claim would have been pursued with corresponding urgency. The chronology itself disapproved the petitioner's claim to immediacy; the very objective of the compassionate appointment scheme accordingly stands defeated. The Memo dated 10th January 2011 as aforesaid recommended consideration of the petitioner's case. However, it was based on incomplete information due to suppression by the petitioner. It was merely 52 recommendatory in nature and did not create a vested right administrative recommendations do not override statutory rules and eligibility criteria. This Court cannot compel the State to act contrary to the governing School scheme or to regularize a recommendation tinted by misrepresentations and gross suppression. Thus, the Memo of 2011 cannot be the foundation of a legal right applicable of enforcement under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
57. The petitioner's earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 2538(W) of 2013 was disposed of with a direction only to communicate the outcome of his application. The authorities complied and communicated his ineligibility. Agitating substantially, the same issues in a second writ petition are procrastination. Finality must attach to administrative determinations, especially in matters, governed by strict schemes such as compassionate appointment employment. The compassionate appointment scheme is not a legacy item to be retrieved long after the crisis has passed. The petitioner having failed to demonstrate the rudimentary condition of immediate penury and having chosen to withhold decisive financial information cannot expect this Court to mould relief from a claim that has lost both urgency and credibility. Sympathy may be a human instant, but in the domain of public employment, it cannot be allowed to supersede statutory discipline or constitutional equality. In matters concerning the fragile lives of families who have lost their sole provider, this Court is to realize that the law possibly must consider human sorrow. The death of a breadwinner is not nearly a statistic noted in service records, it is a fracture in the quiet rhythm of a household, leaving behind uncertainties that echo long after ceremonies of moaning have faded. Compassionate appointment is one of the laws, tender responses to such rupture and instrument, fashion to soften the immediate blow, not to rewrite in the years that follow. Yet compassion to remain just must rest upon truth. When disclosures are incomplete, when shadows are cast over facts essential to decision-making, the law finds itself unable to extend 53 relief. The heart may wish to assist, but the judicial conscience cannot traverse where transparency does not lead Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, like all forms of equitable discretion must be anchored in candour; without it, the scales lose balance. The Court does not overlook the petitioner's journey, not the aspirations that guided him to these doors. However, the compassionate appointment scheme is meant to cradle families at the moment of their deepest descent, not to serve as a bridge years later when the immediacy of loss has erased and the pathways of livelihood have altered. To stretch the scheme beyond its purpose would be to unravel its fairness and diminish its sanctity for those who truly stand at the edge of despair. Compassion finds its highest expression when kept within the boundaries that preserve justice for all, who may one day seek it.
58. Compassionate appointment by design is a narrow window opened only for those who stand on the precipice of sudden financial collapse. It is not a guarantee of employment nor an inheritance to be claimed at leisure. Its strength lies in its immediately in its capacity to cradle a family at the moment of deepest vulnerability. When the immediacy has long passed, when the financial condition has not descended into destitution and when material facts are selectively withheld the foundation upon which such relief rests begins to crumble.
59. The constitutional discipline governing public employment demands, transparency, candour and equality. Sympathy cannot override these imperatives, for the Court cannot in the name of benevolence erode, the integrity of a scheme meant to assist those in genuine and urgent distress. The equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be evoked where the applicant fails to disclose decisive facts or seeks to resurrect a claim that has outlived both its purpose and its premise.
54
60. Thus, while the human circumstances of petitioner can evoke concern, the legal architecture within which this Court must operate leaves no room for intervention. The law must remain steady, even when the heart stairs towards leniency for justice is best served when compassion and principle walk together, neither overwhelming the other.
61. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner claimed the amount received as death benefit of the deceased employee and the VRS received by the mother of the petitioner should be immuned in considering the grant of compassionate appointment, which comprising a distinct financial aspect should not be intertwined or embedded with penurious applicability.
62. The Enquiry Committee, after due assessment, determined the monthly income of the family not to be sparse or modicum encumbering sustenance of life.
63. The scheme for compassionate appointment cannot be a mere formality to be flexible or rigid passionately to succumb to individual interest. It has to be strictly followed in its mandatory terms. The application to have been filed in the year 2007 is devoid of merits and consideration having surpassed the stipulated period of two years. The imminent financial requirement of the family was frustrated due to the employed status of the mother of the petitioner, who therefore was not solely dependent on the income of his father; one of the conditions to be subscribed for seeking compassionate appointment.
64. Apart from arbitrary, biased and capricious act on the part of the State authority deliberately obstructing the petitioner from exercising his right to compassionate appointment, the administrative authority of the State shall not be encroached, interfered with or overturned by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scheme of compassionate appointment must be strictly adhered to, by both the granting and the receiving ends. Any deviation therefrom demolishes the basic structural intent of promoting and assisting beneficial legislation to 55 propagate and thrive in the interest of the genuinely hapless and deserving people.
65. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA 13237 of 2016 is dismissed.
66. There is no order as to costs.
67. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)