Dismissed¶28

Haimanti Mandal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC14 Nov 2024MAT/1354/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; death in harness (06.07.2010); belated approach/delay; Article 226 discretionary relief; Government Order dated 6th July 2015, para 3; orders dated 13.10.2015 and 06.06.2018; not qualified as primary teacher; married daughter claim; COVID-19 pandemic delay; widow's pension; WPA 27017 of 2023; MAT 1354 of 2024; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; WBCSSC; DPSC (South 24-Pgs)/Council.

What did the court decide?

Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and the Court cannot interfere in a matter after passage of a certain length of time. ¶27

Haimanti Mandal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 10th June, 2024 in WPA 27017 of 2023, dismissing the appellant's writ petition and refusing compassionate appointment on the ground of belated approach, contained an error warranting interference. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

Relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and the Court cannot interfere in a matter after passage of a certain length of time.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The competent authority's order of 6th June, 2018 was passed much prior to the COVID Pandemic, yet the appellant did not take appropriate steps at that juncture; the delay in moving the writ Court is thus attributable to her.

¶26

Key takeaways

No error, least of all any patent error of law, was found in the order impugned warranting interference; the learned single Judge's dismissal, founded on the appellant's attributable delay and lackadaisical attitude indicating the family was not in penury, stands.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal MAT 1354 of 2024 (with CAN 1 of 2024), Smt. Haimanti Mandal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., decided 14.11.2024 by Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. The appellant's father died in harness on 06.07.2010; an immediate application for compassionate appointment went unanswered until an order of 13.10.2015 directed respondent no. 3 to decide; on 06.06.2018 respondent no. 3 found her not qualified for appointment as primary teacher and directed action per para 3 of the Government Order dated 06.07.2015, after which the authorities maintained silence. Her renewed writ petition (WPA 27017 of 2023) was dismissed on 10.06.2024, the learned single Judge finding the approach belated and the family never in starvation or financial distress. On appeal, counsel contended the claim had to be considered per the 2015 Government Order, that pandemic years intervened in the delay, and that there is no bar to a married daughter's claim (she married on 06.07.2022; the widow mother draws pension). The Bench held relief under Article 226 discretionary, that the Court cannot interfere after passage of a certain length of time, noted that the 06.06.2018 order long pre-dated the pandemic yet no steps were taken then, found no error (least of all patent error of law) in the impugned order, and dismissed the appeal and connected application, with no order as to costs.

¶1

3 14.11.2024 Ct. No. 11 rrc

¶2

MAT 1354 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024

¶3

(Smt. Haimanti Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

¶4

(A s s i g n e d)

¶5

Mr. Saktipada Jana Mr. Tamal Taru Panda Ms. Sudipta Pramanik

¶6

…. For the appellant

¶7

Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, ld. AGP Mr. Ratul Biswas

¶8

…. For the State respondents

¶9

Mr. Gourav Das

¶10

….. For the DPSC (South 24-Pgs)/ Council

¶11

Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra Ms. Supriya Dubey

¶12

….. For the WBCSSC

¶13

The present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant challenging an order dated 10^th June, 2024 passed in a writ petition being WPA 27017 of 2023. By the said order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and refused the appellant’s prayer for compassionate appointment primarily on the ground that she had approached the authorities belatedly. The learned single Judge observed, inter alia , that the chain of events indicated that the appellant’s family was never in starvation or in financial distress and that as such, question of consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment does not occasion.

¶14

When the present appeal appeared before this Court on 17^th September, 2024, Mr. Jana, learned advocate appearing for the appellant prayed for leave to file a

¶15

¶16

supplementary affidavit. Let the same, as filed, he kept on record.

¶17

Mr. Jana argues that the appellant was totally defendant upon the income of her father, who unfortunately died-in-harness on 6^th July, 2010. Immediately thereafter, application was submitted for the grant of compassionate appointment but as her claim was not considered, the appellant approached the writ Court. By an order dated 13^th October, 2015 the learned single Judge directed the respondent no. 3 therein to take a decision. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 3 passed an order on 6^th June, 2018 observing, inter alia, that the appellant is not qualified for appointment as a primary teacher and direction was issued to act in terms of para 3 of the Government Order dated 6^th July, 2015. The respondents thereafter maintained a deceptive silence and as such, the appellant was constrained to again approach this Court but her prayer was rejected by the order impugned in the present appeal.

¶18

Placing reliance upon the averments made in the supplementary affidavit, Mr. Jana strenuously argues that the respondents were under an obligation to consider the appellant’s claim in terms of para 3 of the Government Order dated 6^th July, 2015. Such obligation was not discharged. The purported delay on the basis of which the appellant’s claim was primarily rejected by the learned single Judge stands intervened by period of lost due to pandemic. Such delay was neither mala fide nor

¶19

¶20

deliberate. The authorities ought to have considered the appellant’s claim in terms of the Government Order dated 6^th July, 2015.

¶21

Answering our query, Mr. Jana, however, submits that the widow of the deceased is getting pension and that the appellant subsequently married on 6^th July, 2022. There is, however, no bar towards consideration of a married daughter’s prayer for compassionate appointment. The appellant’s husband is a poor cultivator and the appellant is still under extreme financial distress.

¶22

Such contention of Mr. Jana has, however, been disputed by Mr. Basu Mallick, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents. He submits that compassionate appointment is not a vested right. The object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardships of the deceased’s family due to the sudden loss of the bread earner. There is no suitable explanation whatsoever as to why the appellant did not approach the authorities immediately after issuance of the order dated 6^th June, 2018. In view thereof, the learned single Judge rightly rejected the appellant’s claim.

¶23

Mr. Das, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the Council and submits that no allegation has been levelled against the Council in the writ petition.

¶24

¶25

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶26

Much prior to the onslaught of COVID Pandemic, the order dated 6^th June, 2018 was passed by the competent authority. However, the appellant did not take appropriate steps at that juncture. In the supplementary affidavit it has inter alia been stated that from the newspaper the appellant came to learn that a judgment had been delivered by the Hon’ble High Court directing consideration of claim of married daughter and that accordingly, she contacted her learned advocate to file the writ petition.

¶27

It is well settled that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature. The Court cannot interfere in a matter after passage of a certain length of time. The learned single Judge while rejecting the writ petition arrived at a finding that the delay was attributable to the appellant and that her lackadaisical attitude indicated that the family was not in penury. We do not find any error, least to say any patent error of law in the order impugned warranting interference.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

¶29

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶30

All parties shall act on the service copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶31

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Haimanti Mandal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haimanti Mandal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Orion Abasan Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Abdul Wasim Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nabanil Pariseba Samabay Samity Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bhagat Jee Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Asansol Durgapur Development Authority and Ors.

Sanat Kumar Hait Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalpana Aluni and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.