SC Imposes Rs.50000 As Costs On State Of West Bengal [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the State of  West Bengal on July 4, while dismissing a Special Leave Petition against the Calcutta High Court judgment quashing the state Government’s order denying the benefit of compassionate appointment in favour of a litigant for running a fair price shop.

The Single Judge of the High Court had given his judgment on April 22, 2016 and the Division Bench had dismissed the State Government’s appeal against it on September 19, 2016.   The Supreme Court dismissed the State Government’s appeal both on the ground of delay as well as on merits, and directed that the costs imposed be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks.

In the instant case, the petitioner before the High Court, and the respondent before the Supreme Court, Matadin sought transfer of dealership in respect of his Fair Price Shop being run in the area of Jorasanko of Kolkata North, under the sub-control of the Food and Supply Department of the state Government in favour  of his nephew, due to his physical disability as a result of his old age.

The State Government rejected his application on the ground that his nephew did not come within the zone of consideration under the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, which came into force from August 12, 2013.  The State Government contended that his nephew did not come within the ambit of the definition “family member” under the said  Control Order, 2013.

Matadin, however, claimed he submitted his application on June 6, 2013.  But the State Government contended that his application was considered after the Order came into force.

The Calcutta High Court had held that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision which amounts to impairing or taking away an existing right, unless there is a direction of that statute for giving retrospective effect to the same either expressly or by necessary implication.    Therefore, Matadin’s application must have been considered under the Control Order, 2003, which was in force at the time he submitted his application, the high court held.

Finding that the 2003 Order was silent on compassionate ground, the High Court drew attention to a departmental guideline issued by the state Government in 1985, which was not cancelled or superseded. This guideline provided for the appointment of next of kin of deceased/resigned dealer in absence of unwillingness of husband/wife/son/daughter of such dealer, to be appointed.  Therefore, the high court directed the state Government to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to Matadin’s nephew, provided he is found eligible for it.

Read the Judgment Here