Anindita Roy Saraswati, J.@mdashThe writ application has been filed by the Director General Employees'' State Insurance Corporation having its
office at Panchdeep Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi, 110002, challenging the order in connection with OA No. 1327 of 2005 by which the
learned Tribunal directed the Director General again to consider the appointment of the applicant No. 2 i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein as and
when vacancy would arise in the quota prescribed for compassionate appointment on the basis of the date of application. On 1st July, 2000 one
Badal Kumar Bandopadhyay, Head Clerk of ESTC, who is the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of the respondent No. 2 died in
harness and accordingly on 28th July, 2000 the respondent No. 1 i.e. the wife of deceased Badal Kumar Bandopadhyay 2 made an application
before the Regional Director, ESIC praying for an appointment in the Group-D category for respondent No. 2. She again made one representation
on 3rd July, 2001 for compassionate appointment in favour of her eldest son i.e. the respondent No. 2.
2. The Deputy Director (Administration) by his letter dated November, 2003 intimated respondent No. 2 that his case was placed before the
committee consisting of Insurance Commissioner, Medical Commissioner and Additional Commissioner (PNA), ESIC. But the committee after
going through the details of the case expressed its inability to appoint him on compassionate ground.
3. Thereafter, as per the direction of the Hon''ble Court and in connection with the WP No. 19903(W)/2003, the respondents filed an application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, being OA No. 94/04, and after hearing the respective parties, the Learned Tribunal
was pleased to dismiss the said application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
4. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 moved before the Hon''ble High Court, Calcutta and whereby Their Lordships the Hon''ble Mr. Justice
Aloke Chakraborty and Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.P. Talukdar were pleased to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal with liberty to
the applicant to make a representation enclosing a copy of the judgement in the case of Balbir Kaur (Supra) before the Director General for his
consideration in accordance with law preferably within the period of three months from the date of the submission of such representation.
5. However, accordingly, the respondents made representation on 12th April, 2005 before the Director General which was also turned down by
the Director General and with specified observation.
6. Against the said order the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 again moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, and the learned
Tribunal considering the entire circumstances directed the Director General again to consider the appointment of the applicant No. 2 as and when
vacancy would arise in the quota prescribed for compassionate of appointment on the basis of the date of application.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred the present application challenging the order of the tribunal.
8. It is submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the Hon''ble Court directed the Director General to consider the
representation filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for giving appointment on compassionate ground considering the judgment of the
Hon''ble Apex Court of India in connection with Balbir Kaur (Supra).
9. The said order was duly complied with by the Director General and also further considering the representation of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
dated 12.4.05 it was observed that the committee did not find it a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground primarily due to non-
availability of vacancies and also decided not to accept the request of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for being appointed on compassionate ground
due to non-availability of vacancies. It was also further observed by the Director General that the case of Balbir Kaur (Supra) is not similar to the
present case.
10. However, it was argued on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that till date no document or order is produced in any Court giving reasons
for non-consideration of the case of the respondent No. 2. No-document was also produced by the petitioner regarding the waiting list for the
purpose of appointment of the candidates on the ground of compassionate appointment and no steps were taken in terms of 7(e) and (f) of the
office memorandum dated 09.10.1998. The case of the respondent No. 2 has been dealt with improper manner.
11. He further submitted that during the pendency of the O.A. No. 1327 of 2005 the petitioners gave appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6
and in spite of the direction given by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner failed to produce the original file relating to the appointment of the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
12. Be that as it may, it appears to us that after the demise of the Badal Kumar Bandopadhyay, his wife Bharati Banerjee filed an application for
appointment of her son on compassionate ground on 28.07.2000 and also gave representation on 28.05.2001 and the Director General (Admn.)
of Employees'' State Insurance Corporation replied the application dated 28.05.01 on 13.08.01 and informed thereby that there was no vacancy
in Group-D cadre in the W. Ben. region during the current requirement year. But after considering the earlier application dated July 28, 2000 the
same Deputy Director in November, 2003 informed the respondent No. 2 that their case is not found a fit case for appointment on compassionate
ground and there was no mention in the said letter that there was no vacancy in the Group D Cadre for giving appointment in compassionate
ground.
13. However, it further appears that the petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit filed certain documents relating to the appointment of private
respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as well as mentioning the existence of vacancies falling under 5 per cent quota i.e. the quota for appointment in the
compassionate ground and on scrutiny of the document it is quite clear that in the year 2003 there was clear vacancies of 4 (four) posts in Group-
D cadre under 5 per cent quota for appointment on compassionate ground out of which two vacancies were utilised for compassionate ground and
two posts were still remaining vacant for a year.
14. But in spite of that, without giving any explanation, the present petitioner turned down the representation of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
without assigning any reason but only stating that it was not a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground and in spite of the direction given
by the Hon''ble Court in connection with WPCT No. 29 of 2005 by which the Director General was directed to reconsider the representation of
the petitioner i.e. the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for compassionate appointment. But the said Director General turned down the
representation given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with a plea that ""it is not a fit case"" for appointment on compassionate ground due to non-
availability of vacancies.
15. Considering the circumstances, we are in the opinion that the conduct of the present petitioner was not at all satisfactory and on the contrary
learned Tribunal was quite justified in directing the Director General to consider the appointment of the respondent No. 2 on compassionate
ground as and when vacancy would arise in the quota prescribed for compassionate appointment on the basis of the date of the application and we
find nothing to interfere with the observation of the learned Tribunal.
16. Considering the above submission, we are in the opinion to dismiss the present application of the present petitioner and thus the present writ
application is dismissed
17. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to
compliance with all requisite formalities.
Indira Banerjee, J.
I agree.
