Dismissed

Shyamal Das v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Jun 2023WP.CT/54/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of his application for compassionate appointment. The court held that compensation was not entitled since the petitioner's father voluntarily retired and was not declared medically unfit. Thus, the Tribunal's order was upholding.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment.

Shyamal Das Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

16 05.06.2023 S.H./d.p.

¶2

In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

W.P.C.T. 54 of 2023

¶4

Sri Shyamal Das -versus

¶5

Union of India & Ors.

¶6

Mr. S.R. Das, Mr. K.P. Mukhopadhyay, Mr. S. Rakshit.

¶7

…For the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Partha Chakraborty.

¶9

…For UOI.

¶10

Petitioner’s father took voluntary retirement from the service of the ESIC with effect from 1^st June, 2017.

¶11

According to the petitioner, his father Late Poritosh Das was suffering from serious illness and he was declared medically unfit by the respondents. He was pressurized by the respondents to voluntary retirement.

¶12

The petitioner gave various representations and filed application before the Tribunal for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the petitioner’s father was a medically decategorized employee.

¶13

The petitioner himself has admitted that his father took VRS with effect from 1^st June, 2017.

¶14

¶15

The petitioner himself has also admitted that his father was not declared as medically unfit and medically decategorized employee. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The compassionate appointment is given to any of the eligible candidate only to meet out the indigenous circumstances of the deceased employee or the person who retired on voluntary retirement on the ground of medically unfit but in the present case, the petitioner’s father retired on his own voluntary retirement from 1^st June, 2017 and hence the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment.

¶16

The Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶17

Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal.

¶18

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶19

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

¶20

( V.M. Velumani, J.)

¶21

( Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

Shyamal Das v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamal Das v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port,Kol and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Surojit Das Vs Depuy Commissioer of State Tax, Goods and Serviceeee Tax and Ors.

Shyamal Kumar Saha Vs the Public Information Officer M D a U 7 Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sankar Samanta & Ors.

Union of India Vs Subir Mukhopadhyay

Union of India Vs Jalad Baran Mukherjee