The Calcutta High Court has clarified that marital status of a daughter does not disqualify her from seeking compassionate appointment, reaffirming binding precedent and emphasizing the requirement for administrative authorities to provide cogent, recorded reasons in their decisions. This serves as binding authority for subordinate courts and governmental/PSU employers within the State of West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/23024/2019 of TAPATI GANGULY & ANR Vs THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0508082019 |
| Date of Registration | 10-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the State of West Bengal; persuasive for other High Courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that marital status by itself is not a bar for a daughter to claim compassionate appointment, in line with binding precedent. The decision also underscores that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must provide specific, discernible reasons in the original order; post-hoc justifications via affidavits are impermissible. The respondent Bank’s orders were found cryptic, lacking financial assessment, and failing to address the drastic reduction in family income after the employee’s death. The Court directed the Bank to appoint the petitioner’s daughter, setting aside the impugned rejection. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, widow of a deceased bank employee, applied for compassionate appointment for her only daughter, citing inability to work due to dependent, ailing mother-in-law. The Bank rejected the daughter’s claim first due to marital status, then after remand on the ground of only “marginal fall” in income, without proper assessment or stated reasons. The Court found both grounds unsustainable. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals within West Bengal; all public sector/Government employers in the State |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (unless overruled) |
| Follows |
|
| Overrules | None specified; clarifies the law against arbitrary exclusion of married daughters |
| Distinguishes | Contradictory views previously adopted by the respondent Bank |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Disqualifying a daughter from compassionate appointment solely on account of her marital status is impermissible under extant law and precedent.
- Administrative or quasi-judicial decisions must contain specific, contemporaneous reasoning; authorities cannot cure lacunae by filing additional justifications through affidavits after the fact.
- Assessment of “financial distress” must be based on the gross last drawn salary and overall financial impact, not just on marginal income reduction or terminal benefits.
- Banks and government entities must adhere to judicial directions precisely, without shifting or arbitrary reasons for denial.
- The decision reinforces both substantive (equality principle) and procedural (reasoned order requirement) rights of claimants to compassionate appointment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first noted the evolving legal position, relying on the Larger Bench judgment in State of West Bengal v. Purnima Das, which had conclusively held that both married and unmarried daughters are eligible for compassionate appointment.
- The Bank’s rejection on grounds of marital status was thus already set aside by judicial order.
- The subsequent rejection, on purported “marginal fall” in income, was found unsustainable as the order was cryptic, lacked proper financial computation, and was unsupported by facts.
- Relying on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Court reiterated that the validity of administrative actions must be judged on the reasons in the impugned order itself; post-hoc affidavits cannot cure initial defects.
- The assessment of family income must be on gross last drawn salary and should not exclude the impact of drastic reductions due to cessation of allowances/benefits.
- The Court further relied on Govind Kumar Verma v. LIC to hold that receipt of family pension or terminal benefits is not adequate ground to deny relief if financial distress exists.
- Thus, the Court directed the Bank to appoint the petitioner’s daughter within one month, setting aside the impugned rejection order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The rejection of compassionate appointment was cryptic, lacked reasoning, and had no financial assessment.
- The Bank failed to provide findings or record family income before and after the employee’s death.
- Original denial was based on marital status, while subsequent denial cited “marginal fall” in income without substantiation.
- The order failed to meet the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness.
- As per precedent (Purnima Das), married daughters cannot be disqualified.
- Subsequent justifications furnished only via affidavit are legally impermissible (citing Mohinder Singh Gill).
- Family pension and terminal benefits do not bar grant of compassionate appointment (citing Govind Kumar Verma).
- The Bank contradicted its own acknowledgement of financial distress in prior communication.
Respondent
- Denied compassionate appointment on initial ground of marital status, treating married daughter as not dependent.
- Upon remand, denied on ground that there was only a “marginal fall” in family income post-death.
- Sought to support rejection via subsequent financial particulars submitted in affidavit.
Factual Background
Shyamal Kumar Ganguly, an employee of United Bank of India, died in harness, leaving behind his widow, only daughter, and aged mother, all dependent on his income. The widow applied for compassionate appointment for her daughter, as she could not take employment due to care responsibilities. The Bank first rejected the request due to the daughter’s marital status, then after judicial direction to reconsider, again rejected it citing “marginal fall” in family income without proper reasoning. Both orders were challenged in writ proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995: Family pension reduces substantially after seven years from the employee’s death.
- The regulations define ‘pay’ to include allowances and provident fund contributions.
- Under the “Died-in-Harness” Scheme, financial condition must be appraised considering the gross last drawn salary and full extent of dependents’ hardship, not limited to net income or receipt of terminal benefits.
- Article 14 of the Constitution (right to equality) invoked regarding exclusion of married daughters.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court reiterated that authorities must provide reasoned, contemporaneous orders; subsequent affidavits supplying fresh reasons are impermissible.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment follows and affirms binding legal precedent regarding the eligibility of married daughters for compassionate appointment and the requirement for reasoned administrative orders.
Citations
- State of West Bengal and Others v. Purnima Das and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine CAL 13121
- Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405
- Govind Kumar Verma v. LIC