Disposed¶18

Bina Halder and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Aug 2024WP.ST/29/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; reconsideration of rejected claim; applicant was minor at father's death; post-majority application (19.06.2012) rejected per prevailing government circulars by order dt. 20.01.2015; rejection order not challenged; fresh representation (05.11.2021) after about six years without explaining delay; learned Tribunal dismissed OA 933 of 2021 refusing discretion; Article 226 writ (WP.ST 29 of 2024) versus State of West Bengal — no infirmity found, disposed of without interference; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no infirmity in the learned Tribunal's order dated 25th April, 2022 dismissing OA 933 of 2021; no interference is called for in the writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs. ¶18

Bina Halder and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 25th April, 2022 of the learned Tribunal dismissing OA 933 of 2021 — refusing the petitioners' prayer for reconsideration of the claim towards compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2, allegedly without calling for affidavits or considering arguments — suffers from infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The factual conspectus — petitioner no. 2 was a minor at his father's death; his post-majority application of 19th June, 2012 was rejected by order dated 20th January, 2015 per prevailing government circulars; that rejection order was not challenged; and the representation for reconsideration came only about six years later, on 5th November, 2021, without explaining the delay — justified the Tribunal's refusal to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP.ST 29 of 2024 — writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Bina Halder & anr. against State of West Bengal & ors., challenging the order dated 25th April, 2022 of the learned Tribunal dismissing OA 933 of 2021, whereby the petitioners' prayer for reconsideration of the claim towards compassionate appointment of petitioner no. 2 was refused. Recitals: petitioner no. 2 was a minor on the date of his father's death; his application in prescribed proforma submitted on 19th June, 2012 upon attaining majority was rejected by order dated 20th January, 2015 in view of the prevailing government circulars; that rejection order was never challenged; a fresh representation was submitted by petitioner no. 1 on 5th November, 2021, about six years later and without explaining the delay. Held: no infirmity in the Tribunal's order refusing to exercise discretion; no interference called for; writ petition disposed of; no order as to costs. Decided 01.08.2024 by Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J. and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

¶1

01.08.2024 Item No.13 Court No.11 Avijit Mitra

¶2

WP.ST 29 of 2024

¶3

In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

¶4

And Smt. Bina Halder & anr. Versus State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Achyut Basu, Ms. Punam Basu, Mr. Rupchand Chakraborty, Mr. Anirban Saha, Mr. Srikumar Chakraborty …for the petitioners Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Rajat Dutta

¶5

…for the State 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 25^th April, 2022 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application being (in short, OA), being OA 933 of 2021.

¶8

Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ prayer was refused by the learned Tribunal without calling for any affidavit and without considering the arguments, as advanced, the learned Tribunal dismissed the OA by a cryptic order.

¶9

He argues that on 5^th November, 2021, the petitioner no. 1 submitted a representation to the respondents for reconsideration of the claim towards

¶10

¶11

compassionate appointment of the petitioner no. 2. Having not considered the said representation, the respondents failed to discharge their statutory obligations and in view thereof, the petitioners had been the worst sufferers.

¶12

Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents denies and disputes the contention of the petitioners and submits that there was no obligation on the part of the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner no.2 for compassionate appointment since he was a minor at the time of death of his father. In view thereof, the competent authority rightly rejected such claim by an order dated 20^th January, 2015. The said order was not assailed by the petitioners. About five years thereafter, a fresh representation was submitted for reconsideration and as such, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the OA.

¶13

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

¶14

Indisputably, the petitioner no.2 was a minor on the date of the death of his father. The application in prescribed proforma submitted on 19^th June, 2012 by the petitioner no. 2, upon attaining majority, was rejected by an order dated 20^th January, 2015 in view of the prevailing government circulars. The said order dated 20^th

¶15

¶16

January, 2015 was, however, not challenged by the petitioners and an application for reconsideration was submitted about six years thereafter on 5^th November, 2021 and that too without explaining the delay.

¶17

In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners and dismissed the OA.

¶18

We do not find any infirmity in the said order and in view thereof, no interference is called in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

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

¶20

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.

¶21

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

Bina Halder and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bina Halder and Anr. 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

Sk Arfan and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nilima Roy and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rita Ghosh and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pradip Kr. Pandit and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sankar Prasad Dey Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.