Sima Kumari Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Sima Kumari Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; appeal FMA 241 of 2024 and connected application IA No: CAN/1/2023 dismissed, with liberty preserved to pursue civil suit and criminal-justice remedies.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should sustain the Single Judge's refusal to interfere, given that the appellant attained majority in 2015 and approached the Writ Court only eight years later. +3 more

Court's answer

The appellant, born in 1997, attained majority in 2015 but took eight years to approach the Writ Court; the learned Judge had rightly refused to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the Board found the appeal unsustainable on this ground.

Ratio / Principle

Forgery, adoption and similar matters are not for the Writ Court to adjudicate; the Board was 'not impressed' with the appellant's submissions on these points.

Key takeaways

As regards non-production of documents supporting the plea of adoption, the appellant herself produced no document contradicting the adopted-son stand; the Board accordingly found no infirmity in the order impugned.ratio¶27
Since forgery/adoption questions lie outside the Writ Court, the dismissal leaves the appellant free to pursue her alleged grievance through other remedies, including a civil suit and the criminal justice system, in accordance with law.obiter¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FMA 241 of 2024 (with IA No: CAN/1/2023) — Sima Kumari v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., High Court of Calcutta, Division Bench (Arijit Banerjee and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.), decided 15.03.2024. The appeal challenges a Single Judge's judgment and order of October 10, 2023 dismissing writ petition WPA 8241 of 2023. The appellant's father, an HMC employee, died in harness in 1998 when she was an infant; HMC had given the private respondent compassionate appointment in 2003, he being put forward as the deceased's adopted son. The appellant alleged the appointment rested on forged adoption documents (contending he is the deceased's brother's son, never adopted; FIR lodged in Bihar) and sought cancellation and an HMC inquiry. The Board held: matters of forgery, adoption etc. are not for the Writ Court to adjudicate (¶25); the appellant attained majority in 2015 yet took eight years to approach the Writ Court, so the learned Judge rightly refused interference (¶25); neither side produced adoption-related documents, hence no infirmity in the impugned order (¶27). The appeal and connected application failed and were dismissed (¶28); the appellant remains free to pursue civil suit and criminal-justice remedies (¶29).

06. 15.03.2024 Court No.6 (Tanmoy)

FMA/241/2024

SIMA KUMARI VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

WITH IA No: CAN/1/2023

Ms. Mousomee Shome, Adv., Mr. Subhajit Das, Adv.

…for the appellant/ writ petitioner.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records. In spite of service, nobody appears for the respondents. However, since we do not propose to pass any order which would be adverse to the respondents, we do not deem it necessary to adjourn this matter.

With consent of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, the appeal and the connected application are taken up together for hearing.

A judgment and order dated October 10, 2023, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant’s writ petition being WPA 8241 of 2023, is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner.

It appears that the father of the appellant/writ petitioner was an employee of Howrah Municipal Corporation (in short, ‘HMC’). He died in-harness in the year 1998. The appellant says that she was only about six months old at that time, having been born in the year 1997.

Signed By : TANMOY GHOSH High Court of Calcutta 15 th of March 2024 01:21:20 PM

2

In the year 2003, the private respondent was given appointment by HMC on compassionate ground on account of the death of the writ petitioner’s father.

Before the learned Judge the writ petitioner contended that she was not aware of the scheme for compassionate appointment and, therefore, was not able to approach the Court earlier. In 2023, she came to learn about the private respondent having been engaged on compassionate basis. She has made a representation to HMC in February 2023, seeking cancellation of the appointment of the private respondent. The same has not received the attention of the Competent Authority.

It was submitted on behalf of the private respondent before the learned Judge that the private respondent is the adopted son of the deceased.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:-

“Admittedly, the father of the petitioner expired in the year 1998 when the petitioner was only one year old. The private respondent was engaged in service in 2003 and he is in service till date.

It is settled law that vacancy for appointment on the compassionate ground cannot be reserved till the heir of the deceased attains majority. Appointment on compassionate ground is meant to tide over the immediate financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased bread winner.

In the present case, the employee expired in the year 1998. At such delayed stage there is neither any scope for considering the prayer of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment nor there is any reason to reopen the case of appointment of the private respondent.

3

There is hardly any scope to entertain the dispute regarding adoption of the private respondent by the deceased employee.”

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner is before us by way of this appeal.

Learned Advocate representing the appellant/writ petitioner says that the private respondent, on the basis of forged documents, obtained employment in HMC. He is actually the son of the deceased person’s brother. He was never adopted by the deceased person being the father of the appellant. An FIR has been lodged against the private respondent in the jurisdictional Police Station in the State of Bihar. The Police is looking into the matter. The HMC Authorities should also initiate appropriate proceedings in the matter to ascertain whether or not the private respondent obtained the job by practising fraud.

She further submitted that no papers showing the alleged adoption of the private respondent were produced before the learned Judge.

We are not impressed with the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Matters of forgery, adoption etc., are not for the Writ Court to adjudicate upon. Further, the private respondent was engaged way back in the year 2003. If the appellant was born in the 1997, as she says she was, she would have attained majority in the year 2015. After that she took eight years to approach the Writ Court. The learned Judge rightly refused to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the case. As

4

regards non-production of any document supporting the plea of adoption of the private respondent by the deceased person, all that we can say is that the appellant has also not been able to produce any document before us contradicting such stand. We find no infirmity in the order impugned in this appeal.

The appeal being FMA 241 of 2024 and the connected application being IA No: CAN/1/2023, therefore, fail and are dismissed.

This will not prevent the appellant from taking recourse to such other remedies that she may have for redressal of her alleged grievance including filing civil suit and pursuing the criminal justice system, in accordance with law.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal by a learned Single Judge of the appellant's writ petition WPA 8241 of 2023¶9
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Calcutta · October 10, 2023
Prior proceeding
Father of the appellant was an employee of Howrah Municipal Corporation ('HMC') and died in harness in 1998.¶10
Prior proceeding
Appellant states she was about six months old at the time of her father's death, having been born in 1997.¶10
Prior proceeding
In 2003 HMC gave the private respondent appointment on compassionate ground on account of the death of the writ petitioner's father.¶13
Prior proceeding
Before the learned Judge the writ petitioner contended she was unaware of the compassionate-appointment scheme and so could not approach the Court earlier.¶14
Prior proceeding
In February 2023 the appellant made a representation to HMC seeking cancellation of the private respondent's appointment; it received no attention from the Competent Authority.¶14
Prior proceeding
It was submitted on behalf of the private respondent before the learned Judge that he is the adopted son of the deceased.¶15
Prior proceeding
Having heard counsel, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with recorded observations.¶16
Prior proceeding
Impugned judgment's factual recital: petitioner's father expired in 1998 when petitioner was 'only one year old'; private respondent engaged in 2003 and in service till date.¶17
Prior proceeding
Impugned judgment's stated premise: a compassionate-ground vacancy cannot be reserved till the deceased's heir attains majority.¶18
Prior proceeding
Impugned judgment's conclusion: at the delayed stage there was no scope to consider the petitioner's compassionate-appointment prayer nor to reopen the private respondent's appointment.¶19
Prior proceeding
Impugned judgment also found hardly any scope to entertain the adoption dispute regarding the private respondent.¶21
Prior proceeding
Appellant alleges the private respondent obtained HMC employment on the basis of forged documents.¶23
Prior proceeding
Per appellant's Advocate, the private respondent is actually the son of the deceased person's brother and was never adopted by the deceased.¶23
Prior proceeding
An FIR against the private respondent has been lodged in the jurisdictional police station in Bihar; the police is looking into the matter.¶23
Prior proceeding
Appellant submitted that no papers showing the alleged adoption were produced before the learned Judge.¶24