ABDUL MOMEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is son of the deceased employee who died on 4th July, 2006 and at the relevant time the age of the appellant was 9 years. After six years of death of the employee, application was filed by the appellant for compassionate appointment. He had not attained majority at the relevant time whereas as per scheme the application is required to be filed within two years from the date of death of the deceased employee. It was sought to be explained that sister of the appellant had filed an application for compassionate appointment in year 2007 within the prescribed period. The application filed by the sister of the appellant was not decided and the application which was filed by the appellant was thereafter taken upon and his prayer for compassionate appointment was dismissed vide Memo No. 2101/HDPSC dated 03.10.2013 issued by the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Hooghly. Aggrieved thereby the writ petition was preferred before the Single Bench and the same was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as the application was preferred by the sister which was not taken into consideration within the time which is prescribed in the Scheme, the application filed by the appellant ought to have been taken in continuation of the same and ought to have been taken on its own merits and its rejection vide impugned memo dated

(3.) Was not proper. Learned counsel has submitted that the facts are akin to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2006 9 SCC 195. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Tania Islam vs. State of West Bengal,2013 1 CalLJ 177 to contend that the impugned order is bad in law and thus, it has to be set aside and compassionate appointment be directed. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length we are of the considered opinion that no case for interference in the appeal is made out, firstly, the compassionate appointment goes by the scheme by which it is provided. It is also clearly provided in the scheme that for compassionate appointment eligible incumbent has to file application within a period of two years from the date of death of the employee. In the instant case admittedly the age of the appellant was 9 years at the relevant time. Thus, he did not attain eligibility to file application within 2 years. The application which was filed by the sister of the appellant appears to have been abandoned and she has not come to the court due to non -consideration of her application for the reasons best known to her. After six years of death of the deceased employee the application for compassionate appointment had been filed by the appellant which was not in terms of the provisions of the Scheme. The same could not have been taken into consideration. For the obvious reason that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the appointment by way of open competition, it is governed by the scheme and the very purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family. The right to obtain compassionate appointment is not available after lapse of reasonable time as the compassionate appointment is offered so as to provide immediate succor to the family of an employee who dies in harness. The aforesaid fact situation is not available in the instant case. Thus, compassionate appointment could not have been offered to the appellant on a belated application having been filed by him.