In this writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment, the High Court examined the financial status of the petitioner's family. Finding that the inquiry was conducted properly and no illegal discrimination occurred, the court dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WPSS No. 956 of 2004 Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.
Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 16th August, 2001 by which after considering the petitioner’s application, appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that impugned order has not been passed taking into consideration of financial conditions of the petitioner after death of his father. It is also submitted that almost on identical situation, compassionate appointment was granted to the family of deceased employees.
Learned counsel for the respondents Bank contends that under the guidelines and published norms, the application has been examined carefully. It was found that the pecuniary condition of the family of the deceased is not such which deserves
compassionate appointment. Moreover, drawing my attention to the order of compassionate appointment being given to members of another family; he submits that the case is not similar to that of the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and I have examined the impugned order and also order passed in another case mentioned in the writ petition with regard to compassionate appointment. It appears that impugned order has been passed after considering carefully the financial condition of the family to which the petitioner is a member. It appears that after inquiry, it was found that this family is receiving family pension of Rs.3,000/- and odd. Apart from this, this family is also receiving other benefits on which they are getting monthly yield by way of interest. In another case, family pension was only Rs.800/- and odd. The amount which was receivable by the family at the time of passing of the order, might have increased by passage of time. But that is not material
here. Material is whether discrimination is made or not. I find that this case has not been dealt illegally or without application of mind.
Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(K.J. Sengupta, J.)
Dated 02.01.2013 Shiv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of compassionate appointment on account of financial status of the family was illegal.
Whether there was discrimination against the petitioner compared to other families granted compassionate appointment.
Manoj Tiwari
Bank
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
