Dismissed¶18

Nikhil Hela v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Jan 2024WP.CT/8/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPCT 8 of 2024, decided 16.01.2024 — Shri Nikhil Hela v. Union of India & Others. Writ petition against the learned Tribunal's order dated 20.07.2023 in O.A. 350/01512/2022 rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment after his father Ashok Hela's death (mother earlier granted appointment; elder brother's claim rejected on 16.08.2017 and unchallenged; petitioner's claim rejected on 21.01.2022). Held: compassionate appointment is not a vested right and must follow the employer's scheme, which permits only one application per family of a deceased government servant; the Tribunal's specific findings disclosed no error, let alone patent error of law. Petition dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition (WPCT 8 of 2024) was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶18

Nikhil Hela Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition (WPCT 8 of 2024) was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of the learned Tribunal warrants interference on the ground that the petitioner's arguments (including the issue of penury and the admission-time order) were glossed over and no findings were returned on the relevant issues. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The learned Tribunal, having dealt with all the factual issues, arrived at specific findings, and this Court found no error, least of all any patent error of law, in the order impugned.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Compassionate appointment is not a vested right; such a claim must be considered in strict consonance with the scheme of the employer, whose rationale is to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased.

¶16

Key takeaways

Under the scheme, candidates from the families of deceased government servants are required to apply only once for appointment on compassionate ground, and this provision admittedly does not stand fulfilled in the instant case.ratio¶16
The elder brother of the petitioner had approached the authorities for compassionate appointment, his prayer was considered and rejected, and that order was not challenged.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — Not a vested right; claim to be considered in strict consonance with the employer's scheme, whose rationale is to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased — Scheme required candidates from the families of deceased government servants to apply only once; provision admittedly not fulfilled — Petitioner's elder brother had earlier sought compassionate appointment; his claim was rejected by order dated 16.08.2017 (school issuing his certificate could not be located) and that order was not challenged — Petitioner's own application was turned down by a reasoned order dated 21.01.2022 — Learned Tribunal dealt with all factual issues and arrived at specific findings; no error, least of all patent error of law, found in the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 in O.A. 350/01512/2022 — Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

16.01.2024 rpan/ 02

¶2

WPCT 8 of 2024

¶3

Shri Nikhil Hela – Versus – Union of India & Others

¶4

Mr. Phatick Chandra Das, Ms. Tithi Paul ... for the Petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Atarup Banerjee, Ms. Kakali Dutta .... for the Respondents.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 20^th July, 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application, being O.A. 350/01512/2022.

¶7

Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue of penury was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment by an order dated 21^st January, 2022.

¶8

According to him, the impugned order was passed by the learned Tribunal without granting any weightage to the order passed at the time of admission of the application on 29^th August, 2022. The arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the relevant issues and such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

¶9

¶10

Drawing our attention to the order impugned in the original application, Mr. Das submits that the petitioner’s claim was illegally turned down though there was no bar towards submission of a second application by a dependent of the deceased.

¶11

Per contra, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that after the demise of the petitioner’s father, namely, Ashok Hela, his mother applied for grant of compassionate appointment and such prayer was allowed. After demise of his mother, namely, Anita Hela on 19^th June, 2015, his elder brother submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The same was considered and rejected by an order dated 16^th August, 2017 inter alia on the ground that the school which issued him certificate could not be located. The said order was not challenged, instead the petitioner, who is the younger son of the deceased, submitted an application for compassionate appointment but such prayer was turned down by a reasoned order dated 21st January, 2022 and as such the same was rightly not interfered with by the learned Tribunal.

¶12

Mr. Banerjee further submits that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the issue of penury needs to be considered strictly on the basis of the scheme towards compassionate appointment. The petitioner could not fulfil the

¶13

¶14

conditions of the scheme towards grant of compassionate appointment.

¶15

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

¶16

It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and such claim needs to be considered in strict consonance with the scheme of the employer. The rationale behind the scheme is to provide immediate succour to the family of the deceased. In the present case, the elder brother of the petitioner approached the authorities for grant of compassionate appointment. Such prayer was considered and rejected. The said order was not challenged. The scheme towards compassionate appointment inter alia provides that the candidates from the families of the deceased government servants are required to apply only once for appointment on compassionate ground. Such provision admittedly does not stand fulfilled in the instant case.

¶17

The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error, least to say any patent error of law in the order impugned.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition, being WPCT 8 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

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

Nikhil Hela v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Hela v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shri Subhadeep Sarkar and Anr.

Calcutta Pinjrapole Society Vs Shashi Kant Soni and Ors.

Gopal Chandra Das Vs Union of India and Ors.

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Kedar Nath Roy

Jhuma Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tarun Kumar Purakayastha Vs Union of India and Ors.