Dismissed¶21

Rita Dutta Mondal v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.

Compassionate appointment – nomination by widow of deceased employee

Calcutta HC5 Mar 2025WP.CT/32/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.C.T. 32 of 2025, decided 05.03.2025 (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.); Rita Dutta Mondal v. The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.; compassionate appointment; death in harness 03.11.2002; married daughter; nomination/forwarding of candidature by widow of deceased; brother appointed in 2012; Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench; O.A. No. 670 of 2015; C.A.T. order dated 07.05.2015; delay in approaching tribunal; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's objection to the compassionate appointment was raised belatedly, and at a time when she was already a married daughter. ¶19

Rita Dutta Mondal Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a married daughter of the deceased employee, could validly challenge the compassionate appointment granted in 2012 to her brother, whose candidature had been forwarded/nominated by the widow of the deceased, and whether the C.A.T.'s order in O.A. No. 670 of 2015 should be interfered with.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's objection to the compassionate appointment was raised belatedly, and at a time when she was already a married daughter.

¶19

Key takeaways

The brother's candidature was nominated by the widow of the deceased, and the petitioner's counsel could show no bar in the scheme for compassionate appointment against granting compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased on nomination by the widow of the government servant dying in harness.ratio¶19
Finding no reason to interfere with the C.A.T. order dated 07.05.2015 passed in O.A. No.670 of 2015, the Court dismissed the writ petition.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — nomination by widow of deceased employee — challenge by married daughter held belated; writ dismissed. The petitioner's father died in harness on 03.11.2002; in 2012 his son (the petitioner's brother) was offered compassionate appointment on a candidature forwarded by the widow/mother of the deceased. The petitioner, a daughter married in 2008, assailed that appointment through O.A. No. 670 of 2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, which found no plausible explanation for the delay and no infirmity in the grant made on the widow's nomination. Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that the objection had been raised belatedly and after she herself had become a married daughter, and that counsel had shown no bar in the compassionate appointment scheme to appointment of the son on nomination by the widow; no reason was found to interfere with the C.A.T. order dated 07.05.2015 passed in O.A. No.670 of 2015. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

¶1

Ct. No.4 D/L-2 05.03.2025 (Naba)

¶2

W.P.C.T. 32 of 2025

¶3

Rita Dutta Mondal

¶4

Vs.

¶5

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Asim Kumar Niyogi, Mr. Vaskar Pal

¶7

...for the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subrata Santra

¶9

...for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶10

The father of the petitioner died while in harness on 03.11.2002. The present petitioner who was applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C.A.T.), is the daughter who was married in the year 2008. In the year 2012, the present petitioner’s brother/son of the deceased was offered appointment on compassionate grounds. The candidature of the brother of the petitioner was forwarded by the mother/wife of the deceased.

¶11

¶12

¶13

The appointment granted to the petitioner’s brother on compassionate grounds duly forwarded on a recommendation by the wife of the deceased in the year 2012, has been assailed by the petitioner filing an Original Application being O.A. No. 670 of 2015 in the year 2015.

¶14

In the above conspectus, the C.A.T. has considered the fact that there was no plausible explanation whatsoever for delay in approaching

¶15

¶16

the C.A.T. and also took note of the fact that since the widow of the deceased had nominated her son for the benefit of compassionate appointment, there was no infirmity in grant of the same which could be assailed by the petitioner (married daughter of the deceased).

¶17

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time when the government servant died in harness, she was not married.

¶19

Be that as it may, we find that the objection has been raised belatedly and that also at the time when she was already a married daughter. We further find that the brother’s candidature was nominated by the widow of the deceased, and the petitioner’s learned counsel has not shown any bar in the scheme for compassionate appointment regarding grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased on nomination by the widow of the government servant dying in harness.

¶20

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. dated 07.05.2015 passed in O.A. No.670 of 2015.

¶21

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶22

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Rita Dutta Mondal v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita Dutta Mondal v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 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

Ashit Ghose @ Ashit Ghosh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mausumi Das and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Suvankar Banerjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sonali Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sabana Khatun Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Nilufa Easmin Khatun Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.