Union of India & Ors Vs. Basanti Rani
Pramanik  Insc 231 (20 February 2008)
Sema & Markandey Katju
O R D
APPEAL NO.8205 OF 2001
appeal filed by the Union of India has been pending since 2001. On 16.07.2001
this Court issued notice and stayed the impugned order of the High Court. On
29.11.2001 leave was granted and stay was ordered to be continued. The matter
called on yesterday for hearing. As none appeared for the responent, it was
passed over for the day. Today also none appears on behalf of the respondent.
view of the aforesaid reason and having regard to the facts and circumstances
of this case, we propose to dispose of the appeal on merits.
stated facts are:
respondent's husband late Shri Harishanker Pramanik was working as U.D.C. He
died in harness on 11.05.1987. On 18.08.1987 the respondent filed an
application for appointment of her second son on compassionate ground on the
post of U.D.C. However, the said application was withdrawn on 23.11.1987.
Another application was filed for appointment of her daughter Ms. Kalyani Pramanik.
It is not disputed that the first son of Late Harishanker Pramanik is employed
in the State Bank of India. Shri Dipankar Pramanik, second son
was employed in some organisation but living separately. The appellant by an
order dated 24.08.1988 requested the respondent to submit an affidavit that her
son is living separately. On 08.12.1990 the appellant also issued a reminder to
the respondent but the query was never replied. However, the respondent filed a
writ petition in 1991 praying the relief for compassionate appointment. The
writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. On appeal the Division
Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal by special
it is well settled principle of law that the purpose of compassionate
appointment on the death of the bread winner of the family is to ameliorate the
immediate needs of the economic condition of the family. In the instant case
the husband of the respondent died on 11.09.1987 and the respondent filed writ
petition in 1991 after a long gap of four years. The purpose for compassionate
appointment is to ameliorate the economic condition of the family immediately
due to the death of sole bread winner of the family. If the family could
survive for so many years there was no need to appoint the member of the
deceased's family on compassionate ground. It also appears that the first son
of the respondent is employed in State Bank of India and second son is also employed in some organisation. This
was not denied by the respondent.
view thereof, both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench fell in error in
directing the appellant to appoint a son of the respondent on compassionate
ground. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench are
accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. No costs. The writ petition
filed by the respondent stands dismissed.