Dismissed¶19

Ravi Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Jan 2024WP.CT/102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP.CT. 102 of 2023; Ravi Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; decided 08.01.2024; compassionate appointment; railways; Safaiwala father died in harness 09.01.1995; mother Sita Devi's application; claim rejected 15.10.2018; false declaration affidavit sworn 2013; OA No. 350/00941/2016 disposed 09.07.2018; OA No. 350/0090/2019 rejected by learned Tribunal 17.03.2023 (impugned order); compassionate appointment not a matter of right; widow permanent railway employee; family not in penury; affidavit with untrue statements could not be denied; no patent error of law warranting interference; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. ¶17

Ravi Kumar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal's order dated 17th March, 2023 rejecting OA No. 350/0090/2019 (Ravi Kumar's compassionate appointment claim) suffered from any patent error of law warranting interference in this writ petition. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The object of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardships of the deceased's family due to the sudden loss of the bread-earner.

¶17

Key takeaways

The learned Tribunal rightly observed that the widow (Ravi's mother) was herself a permanent employee of the railways, the family had a breadwinner at the time the husband expired, and the family was not in penury.ratio¶18
The submission of an affidavit incorporating untrue statements could not be denied by Ravi's mother.ratio¶18
On an overall consideration of the facts, the learned Tribunal refused to exercise any discretion in favour of Ravi.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP.CT. 102 of 2023 (Ravi Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), decided 08.01.2024 — Compassionate appointment, Railways. Petitioner no. 1 Ravi Kumar's father, employed as Safaiwala under the railways, died in harness on 09.01.1995; his mother Sita Devi then applied for Ravi's compassionate appointment. After OA No. 350/00941/2016 was disposed of (09.07.2018) with a direction to the competent authority to dispose of the pending representation, respondent no. 5 rejected the claim on 15.10.2018; the ensuing OA No. 350/0090/2019 was rejected by the learned Tribunal on 17.03.2023 — the order impugned in this writ petition. The respondents relied on an affidavit (annexed at page 125 of the petition) contending that Ravi was aware of the false declaration submitted by his mother and was a major when the affidavit was sworn in 2013. The Bench held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, its object being to mitigate the hardships of the deceased's family due to the sudden loss of the bread-earner; endorsed the Tribunal's observations that the widow herself was a permanent employee of the railways, the family had a breadwinner when the husband expired and was not in penury, and that the affidavit incorporating untrue statements could not be denied by Ravi's mother; and found that the Tribunal's refusal to exercise any discretion in favour of Ravi suffered from no patent error of law warranting interference. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

28 08.01.2024 Ct. No. 11 rrc

¶2

WP.CT. 102 of 2023

¶3

(Ravi Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.)

¶4

Mr. Pratip Mukherjee Mr. Sayedul Haque …. For the petitioners

¶5

Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh ….. For the respondents

¶6

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioners be kept on record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 17^th March, 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application being OA No. 350/0090/2019.

¶8

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the father of the petitioner no. 1, who was working in the post of Safaiwala under the railways, died in-harness on 9^th January, 1995. Due to the sudden loss of the bread-earner and to tide over the financial distress, the mother of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Sita Devi (in short, Sita) submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner no. 1, namely, Ravi Kumar (in short, Ravi). As Ravi’s claim for compassionate appointment was not considered, he along with his mother filed an original application being OA NO. 350/00941/2016 which was disposed of by an order dated 9^th July, 2018 directing the competent authority to dispose of the pending

¶9

¶10

representation. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 5 considered and rejected Ravi’s claim by an order dated 15^th October, 2018. The same was challenged by an original application being OA No. 350/0090/2019. The said original application was rejected by an order dated 17^th March, 2023, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

¶11

Mr. Mukherjee contends that the issue of alleged false declaration was considered by the learned Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation and the same was not treated as a bar towards consideration of Ravi’s claim for compassionate appointment and the matter was relegated for further consideration. However, by the order dated 15^th October, 2018, citing the selfsame ground, Ravi’s claim was rejected but the learned Tribunal erred in law refusing to interfere.

¶12

According to him, the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the alleged false declaration, if any, was tendered by Ravi’s mother and there had been no fault on the part of Ravi and he cannot be penalized. Such issue, as argued, was glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same.

¶13

Drawing our attention to an affidavit, annexed at page 125 of the petition, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that Ravi was very much aware of the false declaration submitted by

¶14

¶15

his mother and he was a major when the affidavit was sworn in the year 2013.

¶16

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶17

It is well settled that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of 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.

¶18

Applying such proposition of law and considering the arguments as advanced by the parties, the learned Tribunal rightly observed that the widow herself was a permanent employee of the railways and the family did have a breadwinner at the time when her husband expired and that as such, the family was not in penury. The submission of an affidavit incorporating untrue statements could not be denied by Ravi’s mother. On an overall consideration of the facts, the learned Tribunal refused to exercise any discretion in favour of Ravi. Such decision, in our opinion, does not suffer from any patent error of law warranting interference in the present writ petition.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition being WP.CT. 102 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

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

Ravi Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabi Pada Murmu Vs Canara Bank Regional Office and Ors.

Suchismita Roy Vs Union of India and Ors.

Tuhin Chakraborty and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Sudip Sarkar and Ors.

Rajesh Bahalia Vs Union of India and Ors.

Atanu Mondal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.