SOUMIK DANDAPATH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the Appellant was a Headmaster in a primary school under the Chairman of the District Primary School Council, Paschim Mcdinlpur, hereinafter referred to is 'the Chairman', He passed away on 14.11.2005. Thereafter the Appellant made a prayer for compassionate appointment to sustain his family on 04.09.2006 before the Chairman-Proposal for the same was forward by the Chairman on 05.04.2007. It was ultimately regretted by the Director of School Education (D.S.E. for short) on 24.08.2010 which was communicated by the Chairman to the Appellant, inter alia, containing the ground that in view of the D.S.E.'s Memo No. 549-Sc/P dated 27.7.2010 the appellant cannot be treated as "financially distressed in terms of Memo No. 331-SE(Pry) dated 26.6.2009".The persuaded the appellant to prefer a writ application, W.P. No. 24607 (W) of 2010. Hon'ble Single Judge, after considering the submissions made at the Bar and taking into account the said communication was of the prima facie opinion - "no reason has been cited as to why the deceased teacher' family (read the appellant) cannot be treated as financially distressed. The language of the communication appears to be quite cryptic and terse." His Lordship, on such premises disposed of the writ application by directing the D.S.E. to consider the matter afresh supported by cogent reasons after considering the relevant Rules governing Appointment on Compassionate Ground.

(2.) Against the same this Appeal has been filed. Shri Ban for the Appellant-has at the outset submitted that against an absolutely identical order, passed in the case of Shri Satyagopal Mishra, reported in 2011(2) WBLR (CAL.)757 a Division Bench of this court disposed of the appeal by way of directing compassionate appointment in favour of the appellant. Shri Bari has submitted that the said decision of Shri Satyagopal Mishra was tested by the State of West Bengal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to Shri Bari the Special Leave to Appeal was refused by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court. As such, according to Shri Bari, keeping in view the above aspect of the matter this Appeal is required to be dealt in similar situation on the ground of parity.

(3.) We have looked into the Division Bench decision in Shri Satyagopal Mishra alongside the order under Appeal in the instant case vis-a-vis the same in Shri Satyagopal Mishra . Shri Bari is quite right that it is an absolutely identical nature of order and if we may hasten to say so are carbon copy of each other. Commonly we treat such matters as analogous and dispose it of by a common judgment governing the fate of the others. In ordinary fact situation we would have been required to simply match the line of the Division Bench decision in Shri Satyagopal Mishra . More so, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused the grant of Special Leave.