9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1885 - HC - Indian LawsAppointment of the petitioner in the category of died-in-harness - financial hardship - rejection of appointment of the petitioner on the basis that the income of the family of the deceased was more than the initial gross salary of the Group - D staff at the material point of time - Held that - In the case of Shashank Goswami 2012 (5) TMI 810 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the Apex Court had deliberated on the matter at hand and had come to a conclusion that the appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna -v- State of Maharashtra 2015 (8) TMI 724 - SUPREME COURT , held that when two mutually irreconcilable decisions by the Supreme Court are cited at the Bar, the High Court should follow the view laid down by the earlier judgement as the latter judgement which was delivered without consideration of the previously pronounced judgement by a Bench of co-equal or larger strength should be read as per incuriam. In the instant matter, it is to be noted that the District Inspector had rejected the application of the petitioner on the basis that the family pension received by the petitioner is exceeding the salary of the Group D staff post at the relevant point of time. This fact remains undisputed and the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the Rules, 2009 either. It logically follows that the petitioner is bound by these Rules, 2009 and has to be eligible for appointment in consonance with the Rules, 2009. The petitioner cannot claim appointment on compassionate grounds if he is ineligible to receive such appointment by the Rules, 2009 - In order to compute family income, the D.I. of Schools considered the provisions contained in Schedule V and, more importantly, the explanation that categorically defines the expression financial hardship (provided above). The impugned order passed by the D. I. of Schools is in accordance with the definition of financial hardship . There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the D.I. of Schools, which is in accordance with Schedule V of the Rules, 2009 - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of compassionate appointment by the District Inspector of Schools. 2. Applicability of the Rules, 2009. 3. Relevance of Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioner. 4. Binding nature of precedents and conflicting judgments. 5. Timeliness of the writ petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the rejection of compassionate appointment by the District Inspector of Schools: The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his mother, an assistant teacher, in 2007. The District Inspector of Schools (D.I. of Schools) rejected the application on the grounds that the family income exceeded the initial gross salary of a Group "D" staff at the relevant time, as per the Government Order (G.O. No. 697-ES/1S/S-18/08 dated July 9, 2009). The memo stated, "the income of the family of the deceased is ?5599/- and initial gross salary of the Group 'D' staff of State Govt. is ?5326/- as on 30-07-2007." 2. Applicability of the Rules, 2009: The rejection was based on the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2009. Rules 20 and 21, along with Schedule V, outline the conditions for compassionate appointments, emphasizing financial hardship as a criterion. The explanation in Schedule V defines "financial hardship" as an income less than the initial gross salary of Group "D" staff, excluding Provident Fund, Gratuity, and 40% of Family Pension. 3. Relevance of Supreme Court judgments cited by the petitioner: The petitioner cited Supreme Court judgments in Govind Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. and Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. to argue that terminal benefits and family pension should not be considered in compassionate appointments. The Court noted that these judgments were overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions in Union of India and Anr. v. Shashank Goswami and Anr. and Union Bank of India and Ors. v. M.T. Latheesh, which emphasized that compassionate appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must adhere to the specific rules and schemes in place. 4. Binding nature of precedents and conflicting judgments: The Court discussed the Doctrine of Precedents, highlighting that when faced with conflicting judgments, the earlier judgment should be followed unless the latter judgment explicitly considers and overrules the former. The Court cited Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal to support this principle. The Court concluded that the Division Bench judgment in Purnima Giri, which relied on overruled Supreme Court judgments, was distinguishable and not binding. 5. Timeliness of the writ petition: The petitioner approached the Court in 2017, more than six years after the rejection of the application. The Court found the petition to be belated and noted that the petitioner failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The scheme of compassionate appointments is intended to address immediate financial hardship, and the delay undermined this purpose. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ application, finding no reason to interfere with the D.I. of Schools' order, which was in accordance with the Rules, 2009. The petition was also dismissed on the grounds of being filed at a belated stage. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointments must adhere to the specific rules and cannot be claimed as a right.
|
