JUDGMENT
Prasenjit Mandal, J.
1. This writ application is directed against the order No. 2 dated 12.03.2002 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 1380 of 2001. The learned Tribunal has observed by the impugned order that the writ applicant has failed to fulfil the primary condition for getting a job on the compassionate ground and so the application has been dismissed.
2. Fact of the case in short is that the father of the writ applicant, late Kali Kinkar Chatterjee, was a Group-D employee in the office of the Assistant C.M.O.H., Kalna, District Burdwan and he died-in-harness on 19.12.1998. Thereafter on 04.02.1999 the writ applicant filed a petition praying for a job on the compassionate ground before the Director of Health Service, Calcutta. Accordingly, a three-member committee was formed and this committee after holding an enquiry submitted a report recommending for an appointment of the writ applicant. But the Director of Health Services did not give any appointment to the writ applicant. So he filed an application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal which dismissed his application by the impugned order. Then he has filed the present writ application.
3. Having considered the record and the submissions made by the learned Advocates of both the sides, we find that late Kali Kinkar Chatterjee was a Group-D employee in the office of the Assistant C.M.O.H., Kalna, District-Burdwan and he died on 19.12.1998. Thereafter on 04.02.1999 the writ applicant filed a representation before the Director of Health Services, Calcutta for giving him an appointment either in the Group-C post as he held the qualification of B.Com, or any other suitable appointment. The three-member committee submitted a report favouring an appointment of the writ applicant.
4. What we find from the record is that late Kali Kinkar Chatterjee rendered 34 years of service and then he died at the age of 58 years. The writ applicant obtained his degree of Bachelor of Commerce in the year of 1984. At the time of death of his father he was about 38 years of age and now he is more than 46 years of age. The deceased employee got full pensionary benefits because he died after rendering 34 years of service. At the time of his father’s death the writ applicant had already crossed the upper age limit for an appointment in the Government service. Thus we find that even at the time of death of his father the writ applicant was not eligible for consideration of his appointment in the Government service.
5. As regards the financial condition of the writ applicant we find that the deceased employee left his wife and two sons. The eldest son Sri Rabindra Nath Chatterjee is a Group-D employee of a school and as per the case of the writ applicant he lives elsewhere. The learned Tribunal, we hold, has rightly observed the fact that in case, the pensionary benefits received by the mother of the writ applicant is not sufficient for her maintenance, she can proceed against her eldest son. Moreover, the writ applicant does not lay down anywhere the gross amount of the pension that is being received by the mother of the writ applicant. The basic pay only that is Rs. 2,025/- per month has been mentioned. By the lapse of time the gross pension amount has already increased to a considerable amount. It may be the situation that Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, elder brother of the writ applicant, has been residing separately only to have an appointment of his younger brother on compassionate ground.
6. In consideration of his age and qualification, the writ applicant was able to provide for his own livelihood during his father’s lifetime. So he was not even entitled to be maintained by his father. As per note sheet dated 10.05.2000 of the office record of the respondent (vide Annexure P-6), the family of late Kali Kinkar Chatterjee got the following amount as death benefits:
1. Family Pension @ Rs. 2,025/-
2. Death Gratuity Rs. 1,63,053/-
3. Group Insurance cum Savings Rs. 14,390/-
4. G.P.F. Rs. 27,524/-
7. So the observations of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the benefits received by the family of the deceased employee could not be considered to be insignificant or meagre one to enable two mouths of the deceased family of such standard to live on, we hold, are justified and proper. That pension amount has been enhanced afterwards for easing the financial needs.
8. The learned Advocate for the writ applicant has referred to the case of Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , which has observed as follows:
We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appoint on compassionate grounds there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.
9. While considering the appointment on compassionate ground the learned Tribunal was right in taking into account of the financial position of the entire family of the deceased employee. The family of the deceased could not be said to be in distress at all at that time. Moreover, the writ applicant is now debarred from getting any appointment in the Government service because of his present over age. The ruling cited by the learned Advocate, we hold, has no application in the instant situation in any way. The learned Advocate for the writ applicant has also referred to another unreported decision of the W.P.C.T. No. 29 of 2005 passed by our High Court in the Division Bench. The Division Bench disposed of that application with direction that the petitioner was at liberty to make a representation before the respondents for his consideration. For the reasons discussed above, we hold, that we are not in a position to give such direction. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench will not help in any way to the writ applicant.
10. In the light of above observations, we hold that the writ application is totally devoid of merits. The writ applicant cannot get an appointment in the Government service on the compassionate ground. The learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the application. There is nothing to interfere with the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed on merits. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties after compliance of all formalities.
Girish Chandra Gupta, J.
I agree.