On November 4, 2014, an employee of the Arambagh Municipality in West Bengal passed away while still in service. Following his demise, his divorced daughter, who was dependent on him, applied for a compassionate appointment within the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). Her application was initially heard by the Director of Local Bodies on August 16, 2022, and was subsequently rejected on the grounds that there was no existing government policy permitting such appointments for family members of ULB employees under the Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department. The rejection was communicated to her on August 30, 2022. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner approached the court, which directed the respondents to re-examine her application. However, upon re-examination, her application was again denied, leading her to file a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner contended that, as a dependent of her deceased father, she was entitled to a compassionate appointment. She referenced Notification No. 303-EMP/1M-10/2000, dated August 21, 2002, which, according to her, allowed family members of deceased ULB employees to seek such appointments. This notification was presented as the basis for her claim, suggesting that the policy facilitated the provision of employment to dependents of deceased municipal employees.
Respondent's Counterarguments
The state, representing the respondents, argued that the petitioner was not entitled to a compassionate appointment due to the absence of a specific policy governing such appointments for ULB employees. They asserted that Notification No. 303-EMP/1M-10/2000 had been superseded by Notification No. 251-Emp, dated December 3, 2013. Furthermore, they cited the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., which held that circulars like 303-EMP did not apply to local authorities. The state also highlighted that the Finance Department had indicated that the benefits outlined in the Labour Department's order No. 251-Emp., dated December 3, 2013, were not applicable to municipal employees.
Court's Analysis and Findings
Upon reviewing the submissions, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, observed that there was a clear absence of a governing policy for compassionate appointments within the ULBs in West Bengal. The court relied on the precedent set in State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., wherein the Supreme Court clarified that certain circulars did not extend to local authorities. Given the lack of a specific policy framework, the court concluded that it was not feasible to grant compassionate appointments to posts under ULBs. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling underscores the necessity for explicit policies governing compassionate appointments within ULBs. In the absence of such policies, dependents of deceased municipal employees may find it challenging to secure employment on compassionate grounds. The judgment highlights the importance of clear and specific policy directives to ensure that eligible individuals can benefit from compassionate appointments.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court's decision emphasizes the critical need for well-defined policies concerning compassionate appointments in Urban Local Bodies. Without such policies, the court is constrained from granting such appointments, as evidenced in the petitioner's case. This judgment serves as a call to action for the relevant authorities to formulate and implement specific guidelines to address the employment needs of dependents of deceased ULB employees.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.