Director General,E.S.I.Corp.& Ors vs Bharati Banerjee & Ors

Director General, Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors. ....Appellants

VERSUS

Bharati Banerjee & Ors. ...Respondents

ORDER

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 2

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.

3

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.

4

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]