Calcutta High Court Slams AAI For 'Unjust' Conduct, Says Compassionate Appointment Scheme's Purpose Of Rescuing Families Defeated
On July 22, 2006, Kartick Besai, the sole breadwinner of his family, passed away, leaving behind his widow and 20-year-old son, Provash. Following the death, the family found themselves in dire financial circumstances, struggling to make ends meet without the support of the deceased.
The Calcutta High Court upheld the compassionate appointment of a man, following the untimely death of his father, who worked as a Safaiwala for the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
The Division Bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Uday Kumar, affirmed a decision made by a learned Single Judge on December 12, 2023.
Case Background
On July 22, 2006, Kartick Besai, the sole breadwinner of his family, passed away, leaving behind his widow and 20-year-old son, Provash. Following the death, the family found themselves in dire financial circumstances, struggling to make ends meet without the support of the deceased.
Despite their eligibility under the compassionate appointment scheme, the family's request for employment consideration remained unaddressed for nearly 16 years. It was only after Provash filed a writ petition that the issue came to light in court. The AAI argued that Provash’s application for a compassionate appointment was delayed significantly, questioning the family's urgent need for support.
Court Proceedings
Senior Advocate Pratik Dhar appeared for the AAI, while Advocate Sanjoy Bose appeared for the Respondent.
During the proceedings, the AAI maintained that a prolonged lapse in their compassionate appointment scheme should disqualify Provash from receiving assistance.
However, the Court illuminated the importance of considering the socio-economic realities faced by families in distress, underscoring that the compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate immediate financial hardships caused by the death of a breadwinner.
The Court recognized that despite the lapse of time, the unique circumstances of the Besai family warranted judicial intervention. The Division Bench emphasized that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to prevent families from succumbing to financial ruin, and insisted that courts should prioritize substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
"The concept of delay and laches to deny the relief to a litigant has to be considered contextually after taking into consideration his social and economic background. The scheme was consciously framed to take care of their needs. They are the beneficiaries," the Court said.
Court's Findings
The Court observed, "A person may survive after the death of the bread earner on borrowings or benediction of well-wishers. However, begging or borrowing or living with someone’s mercy is not a dignified living. Article 21 of the Constitution of India postulates a person should have a decent and dignified living. Compassionate appointment although is not a vested right, it is a right nonetheless. The authority is obliged to consider such application with utmost promptitude. The sense of immediacy and urgency cannot be shown as a defence when the fault lies with the employer. The bureaucratic process of pushing files from table to table or keeping the application in the file to gather dust as an excuse for delay is clearly unacceptable. The duty to communicate and disclose the reason for denying such benefit is immediate and cannot be unduly postponed and deferred."
The High Court articulated that granting compassionate appointments after lengthy delays could dilute the sense of urgency integral to such a request.
However, it also stressed that the responsibility for administrative delays lay with the authorities and not with the petitioners. It thus directed AAI to provide Provash with an appointment within four weeks and mandated the release of Rs. 3,51,000 in terminal benefits that had been unjustly withheld, including interest calculations dating back to January 2008.
"We direct the authorities to give appointment to the writ petitioner no. 1 within four weeks in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge. We further direct payment of Rs.3,51,000/- illegally withheld along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from January, 2008 till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within four weeks from date," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Provash Besai & Another [MAT 176 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024]
Appearance:-
Appellant: Senior Advocate Pratik Dhar, Advocates Anup Kanti Poddar, Khusboo Ruia, Gargi Mukhopadhyay, Ayan Poddar, Soham Dutta
Respondent: Advocates Sanjoy Bose, Priyankar Basu Mallick, Sayandeep Chanda
Click here to read/download the Order
