The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. Etc. Etc.
NAGARATHNA, J.
The present appeals have been filed assailing the judgment a nd
common order of the High Court of Calcutta, dated 30 th September,
2019, in a batch of appeals being MAT 859 of 2018 with CAN 6137 of
2018 and connected matters. By the impugned judgment and common
order, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 05th July, 2018, passed in
W.P. No. 2739 (W) of 2016 and connected matters and directed the
Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality and the concerne d
authority in Ranaghat and Habra Municipalities to consider the application
made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners seeking appoint ment on
compassionate grounds. The Division Bench of the High Court al so
identified the scheme in light of which the said applications would have
to be considered and decided.
619
2. The present appeals concern claims of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners, who are heirs of employees of Burdwan, Ranaghat and Habra
Municipalities, who died in harness for compassionate appointment to
posts in the concerned municipalities. All these appeals concern common
questions as to the entitlement of such persons to be consider ed for
compassionate appointment and whether any scheme of t he State
Government supports their claim for compassionate appointment. Further,
since the case of all the Respondents is the same, the facts co ncerning
the Burdwan Municipality alone may be succinctly stated as under:
2.1. The case of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners concerning
Burdwan Municipality is that based on the applications received from
the heirs of the deceased employees working under different categories,
the Burdwan Municipality directed an enquiry by a thr ee-member
committee comprising of the Chairman of Burdwan Mun icipality
(Respondent No. 6 herein); the Executive Officer of t he Burdwan
Municipality (Respondent No. 7 herein) and the Deputy Director of Local
Bodies, Burdwan Division, to determine whether the respondents were
entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds.
2.2. That on the basis of the report submitted by the enqui ry
committee and after following the criteria set in the West Bengal
Municipal, Employees’ (Recruitment) Rules, 2005, th e Board of
Councillors of Burdwan Municipality in its meeting held on 30 th May
2013, approved a list of 62 eligible candidates for the purpose of
recruitment in Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts in the said Munici pality. The
names of the respondents figured in the said list.
2.3. That the Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality vide Memo
dated 12th June, 2013, forwarded a list approved by a resolution passed
in the meeting of the Board of Councillors on 30th May, 2013, along with
an inspection/enquiry report and other testimonials to the Di rector of
Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal (Respondent No. 4), for
approval of appointment on compassionate grounds. The names of the
Writ Petitioners appeared in the list of eligible candidates under Group
‘C’ under the exempted category, ‘dependents of persons who d ied in
harness’.
2.4. That on 7th June 2014, the Chairman, Burdwan Municipality,
Respondent No. 5, forwarded the proposed list of eligible candidates for
appointment on compassionate grounds under a Memo bearing number
512/XII-6, to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal,
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
(appellant herein), and requested the Director of Local Bodies to look
into the matter sympathetically.
2.5. That since the Director of Local Bodies or the Government
of West Bengal did not take steps pursuant to the receipt of the list of
candidates, Debabrata Tiwari (Respondent No. 1) filed a Writ Petition
bearing No. 3243 (W) of 2015 before the High Court of Calcutta seeking
appointment on compassionate grounds under the relevant exemp ted
category. The Secretary of the Burdwan Municipality submitted before
the High Court that Respondent No. 1 was eligible for being considered
for appointment on compassionate grounds, under the exempted category
of dependents of persons who died in harness and that the Burdwan
Municipality had already sent the necessary papers in this regard to the
Office of the Directorate of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal.
2.6. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 17th
March, 2015, with a direction to the Director of Lo cal Bodies,
Government of West Bengal to take a decision on the recommendation
of the Chairman of the Municipality within a period of ten weeks from
the date of communication of the said Order and to communicate such
decision to the Chairman of the Municipality within a week thereafter.
2.7. In continuation of the direction of the High Court in W.P. No.
3243 (W) of 2015, the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West
Bengal, on 16 th October, 2015 passed an Order wherein it was stated
that the Director of Local Bodies had no authority t o consider the
appointments under compassionate grounds in Urban Local Bodies, unless
the policy in the matter was laid down by the State Government. It was
therefore observed by the Director of Local Bodies that as soon as the
State Government extends such policy for consideration of appointment
of the employees of the Urban Local Bodies, under compass ionate
grounds, in the die-in-harness category, the prayer of Respondent No. 1
would be considered.
2.8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Director of Local
Bodies, Government of West Bengal on 16th October, 2015, Respondent
No. 1 preferred a Writ Petition bearing No. 2733 (W) of 2016 before the
High Court of Calcutta.
A batch of Writ Petitions where the cause of action was the same
as that in W.P. No. 2733 (W) of 2016 was heard and disposed of together
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta by way of a
621
Common Judgment and Order dated 5 th July, 2018. The said common
order was passed in Writ Petition No. 2739 (W) of 2016.The lear ned
Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions by relying on the judgment
passed in Gobinda Hazra vs. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 13147
(W) of 2017, wherein the issue, as to, whether, there subsists any scheme
for compassionate appointment in respect of municipal employees was
considered and the issue was answered in the negative. The High Court
thus held that no relief could be granted to the Wr it Petitioners
(Respondents herein), in the absence of a sanctione d scheme for
compassionate appointment in respect of municipal employees.
2.9. Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Single Judge dated 5th
July, 2018, the Respondents- Writ Petitioners preferred a batch of appeals
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The said appeal s were
heard and allowed by a common impugned judgement dat ed 30 th
September, 2019, passed in MAT 859 of 2018 with CAN 6137 of 2018in
the case of Debabrata Tiwari vs. The State of West Bengal . By way
of the impugned judgment, the Director of Local Bodies, B urdwan
Municipality and the concerned authority in Ranaghat and Habra
Municipalities were directed to consider the application m ade by the
Writ Petitioners seeking appointment on compassionate grounds . The
Division Bench of the High Court also identified the scheme in light of
which the said applications would have to be considered and decided.
Hence the present appeals by the State of West Bengal.
2.10. The pertinent findings of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Calcutta, in the common impugned judgment da ted 30 th
September, 2019, have been culled out hereinunder:
i. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the argument
canvassed on behalf of the Government that there was an
undue delay between the time of making the application
and the time when the Respondents-Writ Petitioners
approached the Court. That the Writ Petitioners had not
delayed filing applications seeking appointments on
compassionate grounds and the concerned authorities had
undertaken an enquiry by constituting a committee but had
ultimately taken years to consider their applications and to
recommend their respective names. The Director of Local
Bodies kept the matter pending without according any
approval of the recommendations, as a result, a Writ Petition
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
was filed which was disposed of with a specific direction
to the Director of Local Bodies to consider the applications
within a time frame. That in pursuance of the High Court
direction, the Director of Local Bodies disposed of the matter
in respect of Burdwan Municipality only on 16 th October,
2015. Hence, a time of about ten years had been spent only
for processing the applications and such a delay could not
be attributed to the Respondents-Writ Petitioners.
ii. That an employee of a municipality cannot be treated as an
employee of the State Government and therefore the
scheme available to a State Government employee cannot
be extended to a dependent of an employee of the
municipality who died in harness. Thus, the respondents
were not entitled to claim the benefit of compassionate
appointment in terms of the schemes formulated vide
Circular No. 97-Emp.; 142-Emp.; 30-Emp.; and 251-Emp.,
which were specifically applicable to State Government
employees.
iii. As to the issue of whether there was any scheme for gran t
of compassionate appointments in respect of employees of
Municipalities, the Division Bench differed from the findings
of the Single Judge. On a conjoint reading of Circular Nos.
301-Emp., 302-Emp. and 303 Emp., it was observed that it
was clear that the aforesaid Circulars were specific schemes
for compassionate appointments in respect of municipalities.
That the said schemes were in respect of all establishments
covered under the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment
in State Government Establishments and Establishments of
Public Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government
Companies and Local Authorities Act, 1999 (West Bengal
Act XIV of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of
1999’ for the sake of brevity). That the said circulars which
were extended to the employees of all establishment s
including local authorities like municipalities, were neither
withdrawn nor substituted by the subsequent notifications
and circulars.
iv. That although Circular No. 142-Emp. clarified th at 97-Emp.
was applicable only in respect of State Government
623
employees and directed the municipalities to formulate their
own schemes for compassionate appointment, no such
scheme had been formulated by the concerned
municipalities. That it was evident from Circular No. 142-
Emp. that it does not withdraw the scheme for
compassionate appointment available under Circular Nos.
301-Emp., 302-Emp. and 303-Emp. and in the absence of
any subsequent scheme or specific withdrawal of the
existing scheme, the scheme remains in subsistence and
will be the scheme under which the applications for
compassionate appointments made by the respondents are
to be considered.
v. In the absence of a substituted scheme, and given that
Circular No. 301-Emp., 302-Emp. and 303 Emp. were not
specifically withdrawn, they would continue to remain
applicable. Therefore, compassionate appointment in respect
of municipalities would be governed by the scheme under
Circular Nos. 301-Emp., 302-Emp. and 303-Emp.
In light of the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench
of the High Court set aside the Order passed by the Single
Judge and directed the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan
Division, Government of West Bengal to reconsider the
Memo dated12th June, 2013 whereby the Chairman,
Burdwan Municipality, had sought for the approval of
recommended names for being appointed under
compassionate grounds. Further, the Director of Local
Bodies was directed to examine whether proper inspection
of the documents had been carried out while recommending
such names and whether the parameters mentioned under
the scheme contained in Circular Nos. 301-Emp., 302-Emp.
and 303-Emp. had been properly adhered to by the officials
of Burdwan Municipality while making the recommendation.
Aggrieved by the said directions of the High Court and
the findings as to the eligibility of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners to seek appointment on compassionate grounds,
the present appeals have been filed by the State of Wes t
Bengal.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
3. We have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel
and learned counsel, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee appearing on behalf
of the Appellant-State of West Bengal and learned counsel Sri Indradeep
Pal for the Respondent-Writ Petitioners, and perused the mat erial on
record.
Submissions:
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant-State of West Bengal
at the outset submitted that the findings of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Calcutta were based on an incorrect appreciation of law
and facts and therefore the same are liable to be set a side.
4.1. It was further submitted that directing at such a belated stage,
that the Respondents-Writ Petitioners ought to be a ppointed on
compassionate grounds would have no redeeming purpose. That the
rationale behind a policy of compassionate appointment is to p rovide
immediate succor to the dependent(s) of a government employee dying
in harness. This object would require that immediate steps be taken t o
enable the dependent(s) to recover from the sudden financial crisis as a
result of death or disablement of a breadwinner of a family. If the said
purpose is not going to be accomplished, the Court may not direct the
same granting compassionate appointment. That in the instant ca ses,
the applications made by the Respondents-Writ Petit ioners for
compassionate appointment relates to the year 2005-2006. That a direction
to act on the same now, i.e., 17-18 years after the applications see king
compassionate appointment were made, would not further the object of
a scheme of compassionate appointment.
4.2. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in State of
Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 (“Shas hi
Kumar”) to contend that where there is a significant gap between making
the application for compassionate appointment and filing a Writ Petition
to challenge inaction on the part of the Government, a direction to consider
the application for compassionate appointment may not be issued.
4.3. It was next contended that Circular No. 142-Emp. clarified
that 97-Emp. was applicable only in respect of State Government
employees and directed the municipalities to formulate their own schemes
for compassionate appointment. This would mean that as a ma tter of
policy of the State Government, it was declared that it is not viable to
give compassionate appointment to heirs of employees of establishments
625
of public undertakings, statutory bodies, government companies and local
authorities. That by virtue of the clarification under Circ ular No. 142-
Emp., the position would be that no scheme exists for compassi onate
appointment in Municipalities. It is for such establishments to formulate
policies of their own in consultation with the respective administrative
department. That, in the absence of a sanctioned sc heme for
compassionate appointment in respect of municipal employees, no relief
could have been granted by the High Court.
4.4. It was urged that compassionate appointment could not be
claimed as a matter of right and a claim for the same must be entertained
having regard to the compelling financial circumstances (if any) of the
deceased’s dependent(s). Therefore, entertaining a claim whi ch was
made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail.
With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed on behalf of t he
appellant-State of West Bengal that the present appeals be allowed and
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court be set
aside.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners, submitted that the impugned judgment was passed based on
an unimpeachable appreciation of the facts of the case and the law in
this regard, and therefore the same does not call for interference by this
Court.
5.1. It was further submitted that any scheme for compassionate
appointment has to be applied across the establishments i ncluding the
municipalities. Thus, the petitioner State could not contend tha t the
employees of the municipality would not be eligible for compassionate
appointment in the absence of any separate compassionate appointment
scheme for municipal employees.
5.2. That Notification No. 301-Emp. declared the foll owing
category of persons as ‘exempted category’ extending, inter-alia, the
benefit of compassionate appointment to the said ‘exempted category:
a) Dependents of employees dying in harness.
b) Dependents of employees retiring incapacitated.
c) Persons belonging to families belonging to land losers.
d) Ex-census employees.
e) Persons holding discharge certificates.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
Further, by Notification No. 302-Emp., the State Government
reserved 30% of vacancies to be filled by the ‘exempted cate gory’.
Subsequently, a Circular bearing No. 97-Emp. dated 6th June, 2005 was
issued by the Petitioner State in the exercise of the powers c onferred
under Section 3(c) of the 1999 Act, inter-alia, laying down the procedure
to be followed in dealing with the issue of appointment on compassionate
grounds to the ‘exempted category’. However, by way of Notification
bearing No. 142-Emp. dated 1 st November, 2007 it was clarified that
Notification No. 97-Emp. was only restricted to State G overnment
employees, and in so far as other establishments are concerne d, they
would have to formulate their own policies having regard to the principles
applicable to the State Government Employees.
That in the absence of a policy formulated specially for municipal
employees, compassionate appointment could have been granted on the
strength of Circular Nos. 301-Emp., 302-Emp. and 303-Emp.
5.3. It was averred that since delay in acting upon the application
of the Respondent-Writ Petitioners was attributable only to the appellant’s
authorities, therefore, the Respondents ought not to be prejudiced on
account of such delay. That the Respondents-Writ Petitioners diligently
pursued the matter with the authorities, as also before the High Court of
Calcutta.
With the aforesaid submissions it was prayed on behalf of the
Respondents-Writ Petitioners that the present appeals be dismissed as
being devoid of merit and the impugned judgment be affirmed.
Points for Consideration:
6. The following points would arise for consideration:
i.Whether the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta erred
in allowing the appeals filed by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners and
directing that their claims for compassionate appointment be considered
by the Appellant?
ii.What order?
6.1. These appeals primarily concern the question whether there
exists any scheme in the State of West Bengal, governing compassionate
appointment governing municipal employees dying in harness. In the
event that the aforesaid question is answered in the affirmative, it would
be necessary to determine whether a direction issued several years after
627
applications for compassionate appointment are filled, to consider and
decide such applications, is in consonance with the object of a policy/
scheme for compassionate appointment.
Policy of Compassionate Appointment: The Rationale:
7. The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no
distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death
being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for
every being. Thus, while death is certain, its timing is uncertain. Further,
a deceased employee does not always leave behind valuable assets; he
may at times leave behind poverty to be faced by the immediate members
of his family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death of an
individual does not mean economic death for his family? The Sta te’s
obligation in this regard, confined to its employees who die in harness,
has given rise to schemes and rules providing for c ompassionate
appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing
immediate succour to such a family. Support for such a provision has
been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India,
i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
7.1. It may be apposite to refer to the following decisions of this
Court, on the rationale behind a policy or scheme for compassi onate
appointment and the considerations that ought to guide determination of
claims for compassionate appointment.
i. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC
468, this Court observed that in all claims for appointment
on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in
appointment. That the purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused
due to the death of the bread earner in the family. Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to
redeem the family in distress.
ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994)
4 SCC 138, this Court observed that the object of granting
compassionate employment is to enable the family of a
deceased government employee to tide over the sudden
crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the
dependants of the deceased who is eligible for such
employment. That mere death of an employee in harness
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the
Government or the public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased
and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of
employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis,
that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the
family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same.
This Court further clarified in the said case that
compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can
be exercised at any time after the death of a government
servant. That the object being to enable the family to get
over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the
death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment
cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable
amount of time and after the crisis is overcome.
iii. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh,
(1997) 8 SCC 85, (“Hakim Singh”) this Court placed
much emphasis on the need for immediacy in the manner in
which claims for compassionate appointment are made by
the dependants and decided by the concerned authority.
This Court cautioned that it should not be forgotten that the
object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to
the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis that has
befallen the dependants on account of the untimely demise
of its sole earning member. Therefore, this Court held that
it would not be justified in directing appointment for the
claimants therein on compassionate grounds, fourteen years
after the death of the government employee. That such a
direction would amount to treating a claim for
compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of succession.
iv. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR
2003 SC 3797 held that in order for a claim for
compassionate appointment to be considered reasonable and
permissible, it must be shown that a sudden crisis occurred
in the family of the deceased as a result of death of an
employee who had served the State and died while in
service. It was further observed that appointment o n
629
compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of
right and cannot be made available to all types of posts
irrespective of the nature of service rendered by t he
deceased employee.
v. There is a consistent line of authority of this Court on the
principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is given
only for meeting the immediate unexpected hardship which
is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread
earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1996) 1
SCC 301. When an appointment is made on compassionate
grounds, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it
seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless
compassion, vide I.G. (Karmik) vs. Prahalad Mani
Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC 162. In the same vein is the
decision of this Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State
of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein it was
declared that appointment on compassionate grounds is not
a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family
of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis.
vi. In State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir,
AIR 2006 SC 2743, the facts before this Court were that
the government employee (father of the applicant therein)
died in March, 1987. The application was made by the
applicant after four and half years in September, 1991 which
was rejected in March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in
June, 1999 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge
in July, 2000. When the Division Bench decided the matter,
more than fifteen years had passed from the date of death
of the father of the applicant. This Court remarked that the
said facts were relevant and material as they would
demonstrate that the family survived in spite of death of
the employee. Therefore, this Court held that granting
compassionate appointment after a lapse of a considerable
amount of time after the death of the government employee,
would not be in furtherance of the object of a scheme for
compassionate appointment.
vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court speaking through Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
compassionate appointment is an exception to the general
rule that appointment to any public post in the service of
the State has to be made on the basis of principles which
accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That the
basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a
deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial
hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in
service. That it is the immediacy of the need which furnishes
the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate
appointment. The pertinent observations of this Court have
been extracted as under:
“41. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the
Respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the
record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was
instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for
compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May
2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had
required that the amount realized by way of pension be
included in the income statement of the family. The
Respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of
seven years to move a petition Under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra), this
Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of
compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing
immediate assistance to the family of the deceased
employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by
the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking
compassionate appointment.”
7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a
departure from the general provisions providing for
appointment to a post by following a particular procedure
of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment
being made without following the said procedure, it is in the
nature of an exception to the general provisions and must
be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives,
i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the
sudden financial crisis.
631
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent
scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to
see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived
of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the
deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can
be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate
employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provide d
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper
to keep such a case pending for years.
v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis,
all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the
income of the family,its liabilities, the terminal benefits if
any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital
status of its members, together with the income from any
other source.
7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the deceased employe e to tide
over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has
left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. O ut of
pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position
to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment
to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such
appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to
grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the decease d
employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-
winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act
with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning com passionate
appointment because on failure to do so, the object of th e scheme of
compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of t ime has
occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of
immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist
and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a
case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for
consideration.
7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim
for compassionate appointment is that the family of t he deceased
employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the
dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate
grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the
time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought
to guide the authorities’ decision in the matter.
7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, i n the
first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate
appointment could be considered after a delay of severa l years, we
are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of pr olonged delay,
either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment
or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of i mmediacy is
diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of
the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the
death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Cou rts or
other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact tha t for such
prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain
themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some
other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a ca se, as
noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim
for compassionate appointment as though it were a m atter of
inheritance based on a line of succession which is co ntrary to the
Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right
and the same is relative to the financial condition an d hardship faced
by the dependents of the deceased government employ ee as a
consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may
not be entertained after lapse of a considerable peri od of time since
the death of the government employee.
8. Laches or undue delay, the blame-worthy conduct of a person
in approaching a Court of Equity in England for obtaining discretionary
relief which disentitled him for grant of such relief wa s explained
succinctly by Sir Barnes Peacock, in Lindsay Petroleum Co. vs. Prosper
Armstrong, (1874) 3 PC 221 as under:
633
“Now the doctrine of laches in Courts of Equity is not an arbitrary
or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unj ust to
give a remedy, either because the party has, by his conduct, done
that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it,
or where by his conduct and neglect he has, though perhaps not
waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation, in which
it would not be reasonable to place him if the reme dy were
afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, la pse of time
and delay are most material. But in every case, if an ar gument
against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon
mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar b y any
statute or limitations, the validity of that defence must b e tried
upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances, always
important in such cases, are, the length of the delay and the nature
of the acts done during the interval, which might affect eithe r
party and cause a balance of Justice or injustice in taking the one
course or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.”
Whether the above doctrine of laches which disentitled grant of
relief to a party by Equity Court of England, could disentitle the grant of
relief to a person by the High Court in the exercise of its power under
Article 226 of our Constitution, came up for consideration bef ore a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M. R. Meher,
President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450. In the said
case, it was regarded as a principle that disentitled a party for grant of
relief from a High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution.
In State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566 this
Court restated the principle articulated in earlier pronouncements in the
following words:
“9. ... the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily
assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescen t and the
lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner
and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may
decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise o f its writ
jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number
of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated
resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause
confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train ne w
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable
delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and
inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed
out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled
with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an
important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding
whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.”
While we are mindful of the fact that there is no period of limitation
provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
ordinarily, a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time, vide
Jagdish Lal vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538; NDMC vs.
Pan Singh, (2007) 9 SCC 278.
9. Further, simply because the Respondents-Writ Petit ioners
submitted their applications to the relevant authority in the year 2005-
2006, it cannot be said that they diligently perused the matter and had
not slept over their rights. In this regard, it may be apposite to refer to
the decision of this Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Shiv Charan
Singh Bhandari, (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein the following
observations were made:
“19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even
if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of
representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance
it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. T he dead
cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix. Similarly, a mere
submission of representation to the competent autho rity
does not arrest time. ”
(emphasis by us)
10. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case , we
hold that the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, upon sub mitting their
applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter,
till the year 2015 i.e., for a period of ten years. Notwithsta nding the
tardy approach of the authorities of the Appellant-State in dealing with
their applications, the Respondent-Writ Petitioners delayed approaching
the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the
authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching
the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a re medy, as
discernible by the conduct of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Such a
635
delay would disentitle the Respondents-Writ Petitio ners to the
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Fu rther, the
order of the High Court dated 17th March, 2015, whereby the writ petition
filed by some of the Respondents herein was disposed of with a direction
to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a
decision as to the appointment of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, cannot
be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
11. It may be apposite at this juncture to refer to the fol lowing
observations of this Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa,
AIR 2022 SC 2836 , as to the manner in which the authorities must
consider and decide applications for appointment on compassiona te
grounds:
“9. Before parting with the present order, we are constrained to
observe that considering the object and purpose of appointment
on compassionate grounds, i.e., a family of a deceased employee
may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely
death of the employee while in service and the basis or policy
is immediacy in rendering of financial assistance t o the
family of the deceased consequent upon his untimely deat h,
the authorities must consider and decide such applicati ons
for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the policy
prevalent, at the earliest, but not beyond a period of six
months from the date of submission of such complete d
applications.
We are constrained to direct as above as we have found that
in several cases, applications for appointment on compassionate
grounds are not attended in time and are kept pending for years
together. As a result, the applicants in several cases have to
approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ of Mandamus
for the consideration of their applications. Even after s uch a
direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are given for
rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants ha ve to
challenge the order of rejection before the High Court which leads
to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving the family
of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in financial
difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the authorities and
on irrelevant considerations, applications made for compassionate
appointment are rejected. After several years or are not considered
at all as in the instant case.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
If the object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds as envisaged under the releva nt
policies or the rules have to be achieved then it is jus t and
necessary that such applications are considered well in time
and not in a tardy way. We have come across cases where for
nearly two decades the controversy regarding the application made
for compassionate appointment is not resolved. This consequently
leads to the frustration of the very policy of granting compassionate
appointment on the death of the employee while in service. We
have, therefore, directed that such applications must be considered
at an earliest point of time. The consideration must be fair,
reasonable and based on relevant consideration. The application
cannot be rejected on the basis of frivolous and for reasons
extraneous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object
and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be
achieved.”
(emphasis by us)
In the said case, the claim of the appellant-applicant therein for
compassionate appointment was directed by this Court to be considered
by the competent authority. This Court noted that in the said case, there
was no lapse on the part of the appellant-applicant therein in diligently
pursuing the matter. The delay in considering the application of the
appellant therein was held to be solely attributable to the authorities of
the State, and no part of it was occasioned by the appell ant-applicant.
Further, in the said case, the appellant-applicant was prejudiced not only
because of the prolonged delay in considering his application but also by
the fact that in the interim, the policy of the State governing compassionate
appointment had changed to his detriment. Therefore, the fact s of the
said case were distinct from the facts involved herein. In the present
case, the conduct of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners cannot be said to
be blameless in that they did not pursue their matter with sufficient
diligence. However, the observations made in the said case as to the
manner in which applications for compassionate appointment are to be
considered and disposed of are relevant to the present case.
As noted in the said case, the operation of a policy/scheme for
compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy.
A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the
applications are processed by the concerned authorities but also in the
637
conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and
if needed before the Courts.
12. In the present case, the applications for compa ssionate
appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year
2005-2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of
the Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority
forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local
Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The Respondents-Writ P etitioners
knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year
2015, i.e., after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the
application for compassionate appointment. The Resp ondents-Writ
Petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the Courts sooner,
claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the Appellant-State in
furtherance of the application by seeking a Writ in the nature of
Mandamus.
13. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassion ate
appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the
authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the R espondents-Writ
Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in
the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-
Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did
not successfully get appointed to the services of the Muni cipality on
compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit
cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ Petit ioners for
appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained.
14. However, we must sound a strong word of reproach directed
at the authorities of the Appellant-State, about the manner in which the
applications for compassionate appointment of hundreds of dependents
have been dealt with. Much uncertainty looms around the scope, extent
and beneficiaries of the various schemes formulated by the St ate for
governing compassionate appointment and therefore, the c oncerned
authorities are unable/unwilling to positively deci de claims for
compassionate appointment. This may have ultimately resulted in prejudice
to the families of many government employees dying in harness. Delay
on the part of the authorities of the State to deci de claims for
compassionate appointment would no doubt frustrate the very object of
a scheme of compassionate appointment. Government officials are to
act with a sense of utmost proactiveness and immediacy while deciding
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
claims of compassionate appointment so as to ensure that the wholesome
object of such a scheme is fulfilled.
15. The question as to whether a direction issued several yea rs
after an application for compassionate appointment, to consider and decide
such application, is in consonance with the object of a policy/scheme for
compassionate appointment, has been answered in the negative.
However, we shall also examine whether these appeals must s ucceed
on a second count, i.e., whether there exists any scheme in the State of
West Bengal, governing compassionate appointment vis-à-vis municipal
employees dying in harness.
16. In order to determine the question as to whether there exists
any scheme in the State of West Bengal, governing compass ionate
appointment vis-à-vis municipal employees dying in harness, it would be
useful to refer to the content of the relevant Stat e Government
Notifications issued in this regard. The relevant Circulars are: 301-Emp.,
302-Emp. and 303-Emp. all dated 21 stAugust, 2002; 97-Emp. dated
6thJune, 2005 and 142-Emp. dated 1stNovember, 2007.
The relevant portions of each of such Circulars are extrac ted
hereinunder for easy reference:
No. 301-EMP/lM-10/2000-21st August, 2002 :
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (a) of section
3 of the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in S tate
Government Establishments and Establishments of Pub lic
Undertakings, Statutory Bodies. Government Companies and
Local Authorities Act, 1999 (West Bengal Act XIV of 1999), the
Governor is pleased to declare the following categories of persons
as exempted categories for the purpose of the aforesaid Act:-
1. Dependents of employees dying in harness: A solel y
dependent wife/son/daughter/near relation of an employee
who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of
assistance.
A near relation of the deceased employee may be
considered for employment on compassionate ground only
when the son/daughter/wife of the deceased employee
cannot be considered for employment owing to minor age
or other disabilities. In such a case the employment of a
639
near relation of the deceased employee may be considered
only for providing assistance immediately needed by the
family, left behind by the deceased.
xxx
This supersedes all earlier circulars and executive orders issued
from time-to-time by the Government of West Bengal in the Labour
Department relating to employment of persons belong to the
Exempted Categories.”
No. 302-EMP/1M-10/2000- 21st August, 2002:
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (b) of section
3 of the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in S tate
Government Establishments and Establishments of Pub lic
Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local
Authorities Act, 1999 (West Bengal Act XIV of 1999) , the
Governor is pleased to order that of the local vacancies arising in
a year under any appointing authority, other than the vacancie s
which are required to be filled up either on the recommendations
of-
(a) the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, or
(b) the West Bengal College Service Commission, or
(c) the West Bengal School Service Commission, or
(d) the Municipal Service Commission, or
(e) the Co-operative Service Commission Or by promotion, or by
absorption of persons declared surplus by the State Government
or by absorption of such categories of casual workers and other
workers as the State Government may by notification specify from
time to time, 30% shall be treated as reserved to be filled up by
persons falling within the exempted categories notified under sub-
section (a) of section 3 of the aforesaid Act.”
No. 303-EMP/1M-10/2000 - 21st August, 2002 :
“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (c) of section
3 of the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in S tate
Government Establishments and Establishments of Pub lic
Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
Authorities Act, 1999 (West Bengal Act XIV of 1999) , the
Governor is pleased to prescribe the following procedure for filling
up the vacancies reserved for the Exempted Categori es as
specified under sub-section (a) of section 3 of the aforesaid Act:—
A. GENERAL PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN
RESPECT OF DIFFERENT EXEMPTED CATEGORIES:
1. Dependents of persons who died in harness: None except wife/
son/daughter/near relation of the deceased employee and solely
dependent on the earnings of the deceased employee, shall be
eligible for consideration for such employment. The benefit will
be admissible if the family, left behind by the deceased employee,
is in immediate need of assistance and such employme nt on
compassionate ground is absolutely essential to support the family
of the deceased. A person belonging to a completely separat e
family shall not be treated as solely dependent on the decease d
employee for the purpose of such employment on compassionate
ground.
The wife/son/daughter/near relation of an employee who died-in-
harness, may apply to the appointing authority through the Head
of the Office of the employee in a prescribed form as pe r Part I
& II of Annexure “A” along with a copy of death certifica te
praying for employment to support the family of the dece ased
employee. On receipt of such application the appointing authority
shall form an enquiring committee of senior officials not less than
three in number. The committee so formed shall make an enquiry
about the genuineness of the prayer as well as the financial condition
of the family of the deceased employee and submit a report a s
per Annexure “A” to the appointing authority. The appointing
authority will forward the case together with his views, recorded
in Annexure “A”, to the Administrative Department concerned
for consideration. If it is decided by the administrative department
to be a fit case for offering employment on compassionate ground
a suitable vacancy may be identified under the appointing authority
concerned for providing employment subject to the condition that
the candidate satisfies the qualification and other requireme nts
prescribed for recruitment to the post. If a suitable vacancy is not
available under the appointing authority concerned the
administrative department may identify suitable vacancy u nder
641
some other appointing authority under its administrative control
for providing employment. The administrative department will
forward the case with suitable direction, to the appointing authority,
in whose establishment the vacancy has been identified. In the
event of non-availability of the berth for accommodating such a
case the administrative department concerned will have to move
other departments for suitable berth. When a suitable vacancy is
available in some other department to accommodate the case, the
Administrative Department will forward the case along with the
relevant papers to that department for further acti on. The
Department having vacancy in the Exempted Category of
posts will provide employment to the wife/son/daugh ter/
near relation of the employee who died in harness subject
to observance of relevant conditions and formalities .”
97-Emp. - 6th June, 2005 :
“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of section 3 of
the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in State Government
Establishments and Establishments of Public Underta kings,
Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities
Act, 1999, the Governor has been pleased to lay down the following
principles and procedures to be followed in dealing with the issue
of appointment on compassionate ground to the dependants of
employees who die in harness, or who retire prematurely on being
declared permanently incapacitated.
xxx
2. One of the dependants of an employee who dies in harness or
who retires prematurely on being declared permanent ly
incapacitated may be offered appointment on compass ionate
ground subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:
(i) The employee has died, or retired on being perman ently
incapacitated before completing 20 years of services of before
attaining the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The family of the deceased of the retired employee, as the
case may be, is in need of immediate assistance and appointment
of dependant of the employee is absolutely essential for survival
of the family.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
For the purpose of appointment of compassionate ground in terms
of this notification, a dependant shall mean spouse, a son or an
unmarried daughter who was (sic) solely dependent o n the
earnings of the deceased or the retired employee.
xxx
8. The Labour Department will forward the name of persons found
eligible for appointment on compassionate ground to one or more
of the following Departments, for appointing them against available
vacancies.-
1) Health & Family Welfare Department
2) School Education Department.
3) Higher Education Department.
4) Mass Education & Extension Department.
5) Home (Police) Department.
6) Jails Department.”
EMP-142 - 1st November, 2007 :
“Consequent upon issue of this Department’s Notification No.
97-Emp, dated 06.06.2005, a question arose as to if the
provisions of the said notification would be applicable to
the State Government employees only or to the employees
attached to such other establishments, as are menti oned
in the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in Sta te
Government Establishments and Establishments of Public
Undertakings, Government Companies and Local
Authorities Act, 1999, as well. To obviate the question, issue
of a clarification in this regard has been under considerat ion of
the Government for some time past and in terms of this Department
Notification No. 69-Emp. dated 26-06-2007, it has been clarified
that the term ‘employee’ will mean the State Government
employee only for the purpose of this Department’s
Notification No. 97-Emp, dated 06-06-2005 .
xxx
2. The Governor has, now, been pleased to order tha t the
appropriate authorities of the establishments of Pu blic
643
Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local
Authorities, within the purview of the Act ibid, will, having regard
to the principles applicable to the State Government employees
as enunciated in this Department Notification No. 97-Emp, dated
06-06-2005, read with Corrigendum No. 151-Emp, dated 08-09-
2005, Notification No. 133-Emp, dated 01-10-2007 and any other
order/Notification to be issued subsequently by the Government
in this regard, the financial position and the nature of activities of
the respective organizations, formulate policies of their own in
consultation with the respective administrative departments so as
to follow the same in course of dealing with the pray ers for
appointment or financial assistance on compassionate ground,
received by them, from the dependents of the employees who
die-in-harness or retire prematurely on being declared permanently
incapacitated.
3. Before notifying the policy, the administrative Department shall
obtain the concurrence of the Labour Department and the
Financial Department.”
(emphasis by us)
16.1. A scheme for compassionate appointment was introduced
by Circular Nos. 301-Emp. to 303-Emp. dated 21stAugust 2002. Circular
No. 301-Emp identifies the exempted categories for the purpose of the
Act of 1999. Dependents of employees dying in harness is one of the
categories so identified. Circular No. 302-Emp provides that 30% of the
vacancies arising in a year under any appointing authority shal l be
reserved to be filled by persons belonging to the exempted categories.
Circular No. 303-Emp prescribes a procedure for filling up of vacancies
reserved for the exempted categories, i.e., the procedure to be followed
by the appointing authority on receipt of an application to be appointed
on compassionate grounds. The said Circular provide s that the
administrative department shall, on finding a candidate el igible for
compassionate appointment, either appoint him/her under the appointing
authority which forwarded the application, or, ident ify a suitable
department where there is a vacancy to be filled by a person belonging
to an exempted category. The Circular further provid es that any
Department which has vacancy in the Exempted Category of posts will
provide employment to the wife/son/daughter/near rela tion of the
employee who died in harness.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
The next notification is 97-Emp. dated 6thJune, 2005 which specifies
the criteria for a person seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds
in the ‘dependents of persons who died in harness’ category. Further,
Circular No. 142-Emp. dated 1 stNovember, 2007, seeks to answer the
question, whether the provisions of 97-Emp. would be applicable to State
Government employees only or it would apply to the employees attached
to other establishments as mentioned in the Act of 1999 as well. It answers
the question in the negative so far as employees of other establishments
are concerned. It further provides that local authorities may formulate
their own policies having regard to the principles applicable to the State
Government Employees to govern compassionate appointment.
16.2. There is no controversy regarding the applicability of Circular
No. 97-Emp. dated 6thJune, 2005 to employees of local authorities such
as municipalities because Circular No. 142-Emp. dated 1 stNovember,
2007 provides in no unclear terms that 97-Emp. would not be applicable
to employees of local authorities.
It is trite that the effect of the clarification of any document is
always retrospective and would relate back to the date of the notification
in respect of which the clarification is issued, vide Ashok Lenka vs.
Rishi Dikshit, AIR 2006 SC 2382. The clarificatory Circular, i.e.,
Circular No. 142-Emp. dated 1stNovember, 2007 has got no independent
existence. It merely defines the scope of operation of Circular No. 97-
Emp. dated 6thJune, 2005. Therefore Circular No. 97-Emp. read with
Circular No. 142-Emp. concern the procedure governing compassionate
appointment, only qua State Government employees.
Further, applications for compassionate appointment are to be
considered in light of the policy holding the field on the date on which the
application is filed. In the present case, the applications were filed in the
year 2006. Therefore, they would have to be decided in light of Circular
No. 97-Emp. read with Circular No. 142-Emp. Given that the said Circular
does not govern compassionate appointment to posts u nder local
authorities, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to posts under
local authorities.
16.3. It is the case of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners he rein
that though Circular No. 97-Emp. read with Circular No. 142-Emp i s
not applicable to local authorities, their applications for compassionate
appointment ought to have been considered in light of 301-Emp., 302-
645
Emp. and 303-Emp. which, according to the Respondents-Writ Petitioners
is applicable to all departments and authorities covered under the Act of
1999. However, in our view, the said Circulars were not understood or
read to be a scheme governing all employees of other establ ishments
governed by the Act of 1999. We say so for the following reasons:
i) Circular No. 303-Emp. provides that any Department which
has vacancy in the Exempted Category of posts will provide
employment to the wife/son/daughter/near relation of the
employee who died in harness. Use of the word
‘Department’ would indicate that the said Circular would
govern compassionate appointment to Departments of the
State Government and not to local authorities.
ii) The meaning of the word ‘Department’ would have to be
gathered, having regard to the fact that the immediate
notification subsequent to 301-Emp., 302-Emp. and 303-
Emp., being 97-Emp. dated 6 thJune, 2005 notifies the
departments in whose vacancies the appointments would
be granted. The Departments are of the State.
iii) If Circular Nos. 301-Emp, 302-Emp and 303-Emp. are to
be read so as to cover all establishments of the Act of 1999,
then 97-Emp. dated 6 thJune, 2005, should provide for
appointment in the establishment covered by the Act of 1999
concerned. It does not do so. Therefore, Circular Nos. 301-
Emp, 302-Emp and 303-Emp. cannot be held to be
applicable to local authorities.
16.4. The existence of a policy issued by the State Government is
a sine qua non for making appointments on compassionate basis, vide
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) vs. State of Maharashtra (supra);
State Bank of India vs. Surya Narain Tripathi, 2014 (15) SCC 739.
The appointments must follow the stipulations made in the policy. It is
therefore a no-brainer that in the absence of a pol icy governing
compassionate appointment to posts under a local au thority, no
appointment could be made to such an authority on compassionat e
grounds.
Having held that Circular Nos. 301-Emp, 302-Emp and 303-Emp.
cannot be held to be applicable to local authorities, we ar e unable to
affirm the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court to the effect
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. DEBABRATA TIWARI &
ORS. ETC. ETC. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]
that given that Circular No. 301-Emp., 302-Emp. and 303 Emp. were
not specifically withdrawn, they would continue to remain appl icable
and therefore, compassionate appointment in respect of municipalities
would be governed by the scheme under Circular Nos. 301-Emp., 302-
Emp. and 303-Emp.
We are further of the view that the liberty granted to the local
authorities in Circular No. 142-Emp. to formulate their own scheme for
compassionate appointment, is an acknowledgement of the fact that there
was no policy existing to govern compassionate appointment t o posts
under local authorities.
16.5. In fine, the present appeals succeed on two counts: first,
there was no policy existing to govern compassionate appointment to
posts under local authorities in the State of West Bengal and hence, in
the absence of such a policy, compassionate appointment cannot be
granted; second, assuming that there was such a policy, it would be of
no redeeming purpose to direct that the applications for appointment on
compassionate grounds be considered and decided several year s after
they were filed.
17. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the instant appeals
succeed in the following terms:
i. The impugned judgment and common order of the High
Court of Calcutta dated 30th September, 2019 is hereby set
aside. The order of the learned Single Judge of the High
Court of Calcutta dated 05th July, 2018, passed in W.P. No.
2739 (W) of 2016 and connected matters is restored.
ii. I.A. No. 1977 of 2022 for impleadment of the applicant,
stands allowed.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)