The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated that compassionate appointment to government posts cannot be claimed as a matter of right..Rather, it serves as an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, to alleviate the immediate financial burden arising due to the death of the employee for his/her family. As such, statutory rules meant to guide the scheme of compassionate appointments must be strictly complied with..Justice Shekhar B Saraf clarified this position while disposing of a writ petition filed by Bijon Mukherjee, challenging the decision of the District Inspector (DI) to reject an application for his appointment as a government school employee, in place of his deceased mother..After his mother passed away in 2007, the managing committee of the school had recommended that Mukherjee be appointed to her post on compassionate grounds. However, the application was rejected by the DI in 2011, on the ground that the income of the family of the deceased was more than her gross salary at that point in time..In support of the rejection, the DI referred to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (2009 rules), which provided that appointment of employees on compassionate grounds was intended at helping the family tide over an immediate financial crisis..Challenging the rejection, Mukherjee moved the Calcutta High Court in 2017. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Dilip Saha placed reliance on the following cases,.The Supreme Court judgment in Govind Prakash Verma v LIC (2005), which held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which they get on the death of the employee.The Supreme Court judgment in Balbir Kaur and Anr v Steel Authority of India Ltd (2000) which observed that monetary benefit in the form of compassionate appointment would bring some solace to the family of the deceased. Accordingly, the Court held that in spite of a Benefit Scheme available to the family, the compassionate appointment could not be refused.The High Court judgment in In Re: Smt. Purnima Giri v State of West Bengal which relied on the above two decisions..However, Government Pleader Joytosh Majumder informed the court that the two Supreme Court decisions referred to above has since been overruled/distinguished by the Court. Consequently, the High Court judgment relied on by the petitioner would also not have any binding value as it was rendered per incuriam..The High Court found merit in this argument. It observed that since the Division Bench judgment in Smt Purnima Giri had failed to take note of another binding precedent in the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v State of Maharashtra, it was liable to be distinguished on law. It was also observed that the Smt Purnima Giri judgment was pronounced before the 2009 rules came into force. Hence it was distinguishable on facts as well..As regards the law binding the Court in this case, it was noted that the Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right..A coordinate Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Smt Sunita Saha (Poddar) v State of West Bengal and Ors had also reiterated this view, in a case that was decided after the 2009 rules came into force. In the same case, the High Court held that compassionate appointments can only be offered in terms of the scheme that is formulated by the State (i.e. the 2009 rules)..This view had also been endorsed by the judge earlier in Smt. Ipsita Chakrabarti nee Dua v State of West Bengal. As emphasized in that case, compassionate appointments are given only for meeting the immediate hardship faced by the family due to the death of the bread earner. The financial condition of the family is a guiding factor for such an appointment..In view of this position, the Court observed that in the present case the DI had rightly rejected the application to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in compliance with the 2009 rules..Additionally, the Court also opined that the petition was not maintainable given that it was filed at a belated stage, roughly six years after the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the DI..“Furthermore, it is relevant to point out that the petitioner has approached this Court in 2017, which is more than six years after the D.I. of Schools had rejected the application..The scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds is meant to alleviate the suffering and the immediate financial hardship (emphasis supplied) faced by the dependents of the deceased who was the bread earner of the family. On this score itself, the writ petition is not maintainable.”.The writ petition was therefore dismissed..Read the judgment:
The Calcutta High Court recently reiterated that compassionate appointment to government posts cannot be claimed as a matter of right..Rather, it serves as an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, to alleviate the immediate financial burden arising due to the death of the employee for his/her family. As such, statutory rules meant to guide the scheme of compassionate appointments must be strictly complied with..Justice Shekhar B Saraf clarified this position while disposing of a writ petition filed by Bijon Mukherjee, challenging the decision of the District Inspector (DI) to reject an application for his appointment as a government school employee, in place of his deceased mother..After his mother passed away in 2007, the managing committee of the school had recommended that Mukherjee be appointed to her post on compassionate grounds. However, the application was rejected by the DI in 2011, on the ground that the income of the family of the deceased was more than her gross salary at that point in time..In support of the rejection, the DI referred to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 (2009 rules), which provided that appointment of employees on compassionate grounds was intended at helping the family tide over an immediate financial crisis..Challenging the rejection, Mukherjee moved the Calcutta High Court in 2017. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Dilip Saha placed reliance on the following cases,.The Supreme Court judgment in Govind Prakash Verma v LIC (2005), which held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which they get on the death of the employee.The Supreme Court judgment in Balbir Kaur and Anr v Steel Authority of India Ltd (2000) which observed that monetary benefit in the form of compassionate appointment would bring some solace to the family of the deceased. Accordingly, the Court held that in spite of a Benefit Scheme available to the family, the compassionate appointment could not be refused.The High Court judgment in In Re: Smt. Purnima Giri v State of West Bengal which relied on the above two decisions..However, Government Pleader Joytosh Majumder informed the court that the two Supreme Court decisions referred to above has since been overruled/distinguished by the Court. Consequently, the High Court judgment relied on by the petitioner would also not have any binding value as it was rendered per incuriam..The High Court found merit in this argument. It observed that since the Division Bench judgment in Smt Purnima Giri had failed to take note of another binding precedent in the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v State of Maharashtra, it was liable to be distinguished on law. It was also observed that the Smt Purnima Giri judgment was pronounced before the 2009 rules came into force. Hence it was distinguishable on facts as well..As regards the law binding the Court in this case, it was noted that the Supreme Court has time and again emphasized that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right..A coordinate Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Smt Sunita Saha (Poddar) v State of West Bengal and Ors had also reiterated this view, in a case that was decided after the 2009 rules came into force. In the same case, the High Court held that compassionate appointments can only be offered in terms of the scheme that is formulated by the State (i.e. the 2009 rules)..This view had also been endorsed by the judge earlier in Smt. Ipsita Chakrabarti nee Dua v State of West Bengal. As emphasized in that case, compassionate appointments are given only for meeting the immediate hardship faced by the family due to the death of the bread earner. The financial condition of the family is a guiding factor for such an appointment..In view of this position, the Court observed that in the present case the DI had rightly rejected the application to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in compliance with the 2009 rules..Additionally, the Court also opined that the petition was not maintainable given that it was filed at a belated stage, roughly six years after the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the DI..“Furthermore, it is relevant to point out that the petitioner has approached this Court in 2017, which is more than six years after the D.I. of Schools had rejected the application..The scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds is meant to alleviate the suffering and the immediate financial hardship (emphasis supplied) faced by the dependents of the deceased who was the bread earner of the family. On this score itself, the writ petition is not maintainable.”.The writ petition was therefore dismissed..Read the judgment:
![Compassionate Appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, Calcutta HC [Read Judgment]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2018%2F04%2FCalcutta-High-Court-Bobby-Saraf.png?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
