http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  8205 of 2001

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS

RESPONDENT: BASANTI RANI PRAMANIK

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8205 OF 2001

       This appeal filed by the Union of India has been pending since 2001.  On  16.07.2001 this Court issued notice and stayed the impugned order of the High  Court.  On 29.11.2001 leave was granted and stay was ordered to be continued. The  matter called on yesterday for hearing. As none appeared for the responent, it was  passed over for the day. Today also none appears on behalf of the respondent.         In view of the aforesaid reason and having regard to the facts and  circumstances of this case, we propose to dispose of the appeal on merits.         Briefly stated facts are : The respondent’s husband late Shri Harishanker  Pramanik was working as U.D.C. He died in harness on 11.05.1987. On 18.08.1987  the respondent filed an application for appointment of her second son on  compassionate ground on the post of U.D.C. However, the said  application   was   withdrawn  on 23.11.1987.  Another

application was filed for appointment of her daughter Ms. Kalyani Pramanik. It is  not disputed that the first son of Late Harishanker Pramanik is employed in the  State Bank of India. Shri Dipankar Pramanik, second son was employed in some  organisation but  living separately. The appellant by an order dated 24.08.1988  requested the respondent to submit an affidavit that her son is living separately.  On  08.12.1990 the appellant also issued a reminder to the respondent but the query was  never replied.  However, the respondent filed a writ petition in 1991 praying the  relief for compassionate appointment.  The writ petition was allowed by the learned  Single Judge. On appeal the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single  Judge. Hence this appeal by special leave.         By now it is well settled principle of law  that the purpose of compassionate  appointment on the death of the bread winner of the family is to ameliorate the  immediate needs of the economic condition of the family.  In the instant case the  husband of the respondent died on 11.09.1987 and the respondent filed writ petition  in 1991 after a long gap of four years.  The purpose for compassionate appointment  is to ameliorate  the economic condition of the family immediately due to the death of  sole bread winner of the family. If the family could survive for so many years there  was no need to appoint the member of the deceased’s family on compassionate  ground.  It also appears that the first son of the respondent is employed in State  Bank of India and second son is also employed in some organisation. This was not  denied by the respondent.           In view thereof, both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench fell in error  in directing the appellant to appoint a son of the respondent on compassionate  ground. The orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench are accordingly  set aside.  This appeal is allowed. No costs. The writ petition filed by the respondent  stands dismissed.