BIKASH CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner being the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 questioned the letter dated 8th March, 2006 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Power and Non conventional Energy, Government of West Bengal, wherein the prayer of the writ petitioner No.2 for appointment of his son being the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate ground was rejected.

(2.) THE fact of this case reveals that the petitioner No.2 was an employee of the respondent authority and he became permanently incapacitated on medical ground and he applied appointment of his son, the petitioner No.1, in a suitable post on compassionate ground on the basis of Circular dated 26th February, 1997. It appears from the record that the concerned authorities recommended the case of the petitioner No.2's son being the petitioner No. 1 for appointment and which was admitted by the answering respondent Nos.2,4,5 and 6 in their opposition wherein it was clearly stated that an Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the matter about the genuineness of the claim for voluntary retirement of Tarapada Das, being the petitioner No.2 herein, against an employment of his son on compassionate ground and on financial condition of the family. THE statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition which is very important in this case is quoted herein "the Committee supported the claim and they commented that the claim was genuine and recommended the claim of employment of Bikash Chandra Das, son of Tarapada Das on compassionate ground.", Even in spite of the fact that a recommendation was made by the Committee constituted under Office Order No.53 dated 13th March, 1999 the petitioner No. 1 was not given employment on compassionate ground. It appears from the record that the respondent authorities also appointed at least seven persons as would appear from the letter dated 27th February, 2006 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Power and Non- conventional Energy Sources. But unfortunately, the case of the petitioner No. 1, although recommended by the Committee constituted in that regard, have not been considered and no appointment was given. It also appears from the Notification dated 6th June, 2005 that the cases which are pending consideration under the 1997 Circular would not be guided by the present Circular but the appointment as recommended by the Committee would govern the relevant Circular which was applicable at the relevant point of time that is the Circular of 1997.

(3.) MR. Pal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when it is the case of the answering respondents that the petitioner No.2 having a genuine case and on similar prayers the concerned respondents have issued letter of appointment and/or allowed appointment to seven candidates, the case of the petitioners was rejected on flimsy ground which is of course not specified in the impugned letter dated 8th March, 2006.