Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Rejected For Financial Reasons If Not Stated In The Original Order:Calcutta HC

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim cannot be based on financial stringency if that ground was not mentioned in the original rejection order or enquiry committee report. Background Facts The petitioner's father was an employee of the West Bengal Transport Corporation who died in service. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the scheme contained in a notification dated 13.01.2011. An Enquiry Committee was constituted to examine the petitioner's claim. The Committee found that the family of the deceased was in need of immediate financial assistance. However, the Committee rejected the claim and recommended grant of one-time financial assistance. Consequently, the Managing Director issued a communication rejecting the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner filed a writ petition. A Single Judge set aside the report of the Enquiry Committee and the communication of the Managing Director. It was held that the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Single Judge, the West Bengal Transport Corporation filed the intra-court appeal. It was submitted by the appellants that the scheme contained in the notification dated 13.01.2011 permits consideration of financial stringency of the organization while deciding claims for compassionate appointment. It was argued that since the scheme provides scope for considering financial stringency, the rejection of the petitioner's claim on such ground did not warrant any interference by the Single Judge. On the other hand, it was submitted by the applicant that the Single Judge had rightly found his claim to be admissible. It was argued that the plea of financial stringency was unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Findings And Observations Of The Court It was noted by the Court that upon perusal of the report of the Enquiry Committee, the Committee had found that the family of the deceased was in need of immediate financial assistance. However, the Committee rejected the claim without any reference to Clause 10 of the scheme or any consideration that the financial condition of the corporation was coming in the way of grant of compassionate appointment. It was further observed that the communication issued by the Managing Director also did not refer to any ground of financial stringency. It was held that when an order is assailed and falls for consideration in a court proceeding, the same has to be considered with reference to the grounds stated therein, and the authority cannot be permitted to supplement or urge new grounds by way of an affidavit which are not to be found in the document falling for consideration. It was observed that instead of granting the benefit of compassionate appointment, the committee recommended grant of compensation. The report of the committee did not even mention any consideration with reference to paragraph 10 of the scheme. There was no consideration by the committee that the financial condition of the corporation was in any way coming in the way of grant of compassionate appointment. It was further observed by the Court that Clause 6 of the notification provides for granting of one-time financial assistance to the dependent only if a suitable vacancy is not found in the organization. It was noted that there was no dispute regarding non-availability of a suitable vacancy. Further, the respondents had granted appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2023 to another individual. Therefore, there was no scope for rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground and to grant monetary compensation in place of appointment. With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the West Bengal Transport Corporation was dismissed by the Division Bench. Case Name : West Bengal Transport Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dipankar Banik & Ors. Case No. : APO/38/2025 Counsel for the Appellants : Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Niladri Bhattacharya, Deblina Chattaraj, Advs. Counsel for the Respondents : Debdutta Basu, Soumalika Nandan, Advs.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Rejected For Financial Reasons If Not Stated In The Original Order:Calcutta HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Rejected For Financial Reasons If Not Stated In The Original Order:Calcutta HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers