IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8411  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11890 of 2008)

Director General,  Employees’ State Insurance Corporation  & Ors.     ….Appellants

VERSUS

Bharati Banerjee & Ors.                           …Respondents

O R D E R  

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated 5th of February, 2008 passed by a Division Bench of the  

High Court  of Calcutta in W.P.C.T.No.758 of 2007, whereby  

the  High  Court  had  passed  an  order  in  favour  of  the  

respondent relating to the appointment of the respondent in  

Group-D Post of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation.  

An  application  was  filed  before  the  concerned  Tribunal  for  

appointment  on  compassionate  ground,  however,  the  

authorities had appointed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on that  

1

ground in  Group-D post  of  the  Employees’  State  Insurance  

Corporation  but  had  refused  to  accept  the  claim  of  the  

respondent for appointment. The Tribunal was approached by  

the respondent when the Tribunal directed the authorities to  

produce  records  relating  to  compassionate  appointment  of  

respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and also the respondent. It is not in  

dispute that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were given appointment  

on  compassionate  ground.  Perhaps  for  this  reason,  records  

were called for by the Tribunal, but records were not produced  

and  for  that  reason  the  Tribunal  had  taken  an  adverse  

decision and directed appointment of the respondent for non  

production  of  the  records  relating  to  appointment  of  the  

respondent and also respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The High Court  

also directed the authorities to produce the records and since  

the records were not produced, the application was dismissed.  

Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed against the order of the  

High Court by way of a special leave petition which on grant of  

leave  was heard  in  presence  of  the  learned counsel  for  the  

parties.

2

When asked for,  learned counsel  for the appellant had  

produced  the  records  relating  to  the  appointment  of  

respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on compassionate ground. Since the  

records  were  produced  and  we  have  also  examined  the  

records,  a  copy  of  which  has  already  been handed  over  to  

Mr.Ranjan  Mukherjee,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent and since the records have now been produced, we  

thought it appropriate that on this ground the application filed  

before the High Court could not be dismissed. In this view of  

the matter, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit  

the  case  back  to  the  High  Court  for  decision  afresh  in  

accordance with law after  giving hearing to the  parties  and  

after passing a reasoned order. Since the records relating to  

the appointment of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were produced  

before us, we also direct the appellant to produce the records  

relating to those appointments before the High Court at the  

time of final disposal of the writ petition.   

The  High  Court  is  requested  to  dispose  of  the  writ  

petition within three months from the date of supply of a copy  

of this order to it.    

3

The appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above.  

There will be no order as to costs.  

   ……………………………J.      [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi;      ……………………………J. December 17, 2009.     [Surinder Singh Nijjar]     

4