SUSMITA MAZUMDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears on behalf of the State respondents when the matter is called on. Let the affidavit of service be kept on record. This writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing an order passed under memo No. 378/1(4)LC dated January 11, 2012 by the respondent No. 2. BY the impugned order, the respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The husband of the petitioner was an assistant teacher of Balki High School (H.S.), District North 24 Parganas. According to the petitioner, he breathed his last on January 7, 2008. An application of the petitioner was forwarded to the respondent No. 3 for appointment on compassionate ground on March 20, 2008. Since no step was taken by the respondent No. 4 in respect of the above application, the petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Susmita Mazumder v. State & Ors. (In re: W.P. 22008(W) of 2010 and the same was disposed of on November 29, 2010 with a direction upon the respondent No. 2 to take a decision in the above matter in accordance with law. In compliance of the above order, the impugned order was passed. The operative part of the above order is quoted below:-

(2.) After perusing the impugned order, I find that the respondent No. 2 took into consideration the income of the dependents of the deceased erstwhile assistant teacher towards family pension of the petitioner.

(3.) It is the settled principles of law that the family pension or the benefits paid to the dependents of a deceased employee cannot be a valid ground for rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground. Reference may be made to the decision of Tapan Kumar Barman v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2009 1 CalHN 23 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below: