WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus SAMIR K. SARKAR

WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. versus SAMIR K. SARKAR

The embargo contained in clause (a) of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Office Order dated 15.3.1993 is valid. Clauses (i) and (ii) involve deaths or disablement directly related to employment, justifying different treatment from clauses (iii), (iv), (v). The policy is not discriminatory under Article 14; thus, the respondent is not entitled to compassionate appointment as his father's death fell within two years preceding superannuation under clause (a).

Parties
Appellant: West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors.; Respondent: Samir K. Sarkar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Compassionate Appointment, Reasonable Classification, Discrimination Under Article 14
Service Law Constitutional Law Compassionate Appointment Reasonable Classification Discrimination Under Article 14

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

West Bengal State Electricity Board and Ors.

Appellant

Samir K. Sarkar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the embargo on compassionate appointment contained in West Bengal State Electricity Board Office Order dated 15.3.1993 violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether the classification between deaths arising in the course of employment and other deaths for the purpose of compassionate appointment is valid

Ratio Decidendi

The embargo contained in clause (a) of the West Bengal State Electricity Board Office Order dated 15.3.1993 is valid. Clauses (i) and (ii) involve deaths or disablement directly related to employment, justifying different treatment from clauses (iii), (iv), (v). The policy is not discriminatory under Article 14; thus, the respondent is not entitled to compassionate appointment as his father's death fell within two years preceding superannuation under clause (a).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside

Orders

  • Respondent not entitled to compassionate appointment under the office order dated 15th March 1993
  • No order as to costs