Rita Dutta Mondal v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. And ORS.

Ct. No.4 D/L-2 05.03.2025 (Naba) W.P.C.T. 32 of 2025 Rita Dutta Mondal Vs.

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.

Mr. Asim Kumar Niyogi, Mr. Vaskar Pal ...for the Petitioner Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subrata Santra ...for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 1.

The father of the petitioner died while in harness on 03.11.2002. The present petitioner who was applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.A.T.), is the daughter who was married in the year 2008. In the year 2012, the present petitioner's brother/son of the deceased was offered appointment on compassionate grounds. The candidature of the brother of the petitioner was forwarded by the mother/wife of the deceased.

2.

The appointment granted to the petitioner's brother on compassionate grounds duly forwarded on a recommendation by the wife of the deceased in the year 2012, has been assailed by the petitioner filing an Original Application being O.A. No. 670 of 2015 in the year 2015.

3.

In the above conspectus, the C.A.T.

has considered the fact that there was no plausible explanation whatsoever for delay in approaching

the C.A.T. and also took note of the fact that since the widow of the deceased had nominated her son for the benefit of compassionate appointment, there was no infirmity in grant of the same which could be assailed by the petitioner (married daughter of the deceased).

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time when the government servant died in harness, she was not married.

5.

Be that as it may, we find that the objection has been raised belatedly and that also at the time when she was already a married daughter. We further find that the brother's candidature was nominated by the widow of the deceased, and the petitioner's learned counsel has not shown any bar in the scheme for compassionate appointment regarding grant of compassionate appointment to the son of the deceased on nomination by the widow of the government servant dying in harness.

6.

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. dated 07.05.2015 passed in O.A. No.670 of 2015.

7.

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)