In a notable clarification of service law relating to compassionate appointments, the Calcutta High Court has ruled in favor of petitioner Sk. Monikul Hossain, whose application for a job on compassionate grounds was earlier rejected due to the interpretation of his father’s age at the time of death.
Delivering the verdict in W.P.A. 28275 of 2024, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya held that if the teacher had died even a day later—on January 2, 2021—his son would have had no legal entitlement, but since he died on January 1, 2021, the petitioner remains eligible under the rules.
Background of the Case
The petitioner’s father, a government school teacher in West Bengal, was due to retire on January 31, 2021, as per Rule 18 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016. His recorded date of birth was January 2, 1961, but he passed away on January 1, 2021.
Sk. Monikul Hossain applied for a job on compassionate grounds, a provision that allows dependents of deceased government employees to be considered for appointment if the employee dies before superannuation (i.e., before turning 60). However, the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Eastern Region, rejected his application via a memo dated February 5, 2024, claiming that his father had already attained 60 years of age on the date of death and thus died after completing the age threshold, rendering the son ineligible.
Legal Issues Involved
- Interpretation of Age at the Time of Death:
Whether the deceased, who died on the date he was supposed to complete 60 years (January 1, 2021), can be said to have completed 60 years, thus affecting the dependent’s eligibility for compassionate appointment.
- Applicability of Rules:
Whether the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2009 or the 2016 Recruitment Rules should govern the case, since the petitioner had applied for a position in a secondary school.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner:
Advocates Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. Sampriti Saha, and Ms. Swati Dey argued that:
- Since the deceased’s date of birth was January 2, 1961, he would have completed 60 years only on January 2, 2021.
- Therefore, on January 1, 2021, the date of his death, he was technically 59 years, 11 months, and 30 days old.
- As such, the petitioner remained eligible under Clause 1 of Schedule V of the 2009 Rules, which provides for compassionate appointment if the government employee dies before reaching 60 years of age.
For the Respondents:
Advocates Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick and Mr. Biman Halder (for the State), Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy (for WBCSSC), and Mr. Saibal Acharyya with Mr. Tanweer Jamil Mandal (for DPSC, Purba Bardhaman) argued:
- Since the deceased died on January 1, 2021, the day he was to attain 60 years, he had already reached the retirement age.
- Consequently, his dependent was ineligible under the 2009 Rules.
Court’s Observations
In a clear and decisive interpretation, Justice Bhattacharyya noted:
“Had the father of the petitioner died on 2nd January, 2021, it could have been concluded that father completed sixty years of age. But in the present case, since father died on the last date when he attained 60th year, it cannot be concluded that the father completed sixty years.”
The Court clarified that:
- There exists no express statutory bar against considering applications where the deceased employee dies on the date of attaining 60, but before completing it.
- The eligibility for compassionate appointment depends on whether the employee died before completing 60 years, not merely on reaching the 60th calendar year.
Judgment and Directions
- The impugned memo dated February 5, 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s application, was quashed.
- The Court directed the Regional School Service Commission (Eastern Region) to send a recommendation for the petitioner’s appointment to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, provided he fulfills all other criteria.
- The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Bardhaman, was also ordered to forward all relevant records within 7 days of receiving the order.
The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly, without any order as to costs.
