KAMALESH ADGIRI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter was heard on 4th March, 2008 and again on 1.1th March, 2008. On 4th March, 2008 learned lawyer for the State Mr. Saibal Acharya appeared. However, on 11th March, 2008 none appears on behalf of the State. This application is against an order of the learned Tribunal dated 19th October, 2001 by which the applicant's challenge against departmental order of rejection of claim for appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed. The fact is recorded in short as follows:

(2.) THE applicant challenged the above order by filing a subsequent application being O.A. No. 54 of 1999 on which the impugned judgment and order was passed. The learned Tribunal by an interim order dated 11th February, 1999 with a reasoned order admitted the said application and passed the initial order to keep one vacant post till further orders of the Tribunal.

(3.) WE do not have the benefit of listening argument of learned lawyer for the Slate. It has now to he considered whether the order passed by the Secretary of the Department concerned while rejecting claim of the applicant is sustainable in the eye of law or not. The learned Tribunal by its earlier order dated 25th August, 1998 has decided the matter. The learned Tribunal directed to consider claims and contentions as made in the earlier application treating the same as being a substantive representation. Therefore, it was incumbent on part of the Secretary to look into the relevant scheme and provision -for the compassionate appointment framed by the Government, which was prevailing. At that point of time we find following was the criteria in terms of the scheme for considering prayer for compassionate appointment:.However, while considering a particular petition for compassionate employment in the events above -mentioned, the appointing authority has to be satisfied as to whether the petitioner concerned was solely dependent on earnings of the deceased or incapacitated employee and whether the purpose of meeting the immediate need of assistance to the family will actually he served by offering employment to the petitioner, i.e. the dependent near relation concerned. Then again, it has also to be ensured that a person belonging to completely separate family is not normally treated as a 'near relation' or 'dependant' for this purpose. The entire matter should be judged on the basis of the economic relationship prevalent between the ex -employee concerned and the petitioner as also from the point of a normal family ambit.