Calcutta High Court: 80-year-old widow approaches Court to seek direction towards her daughter-in-law to provide for her maintenance as she had taken compassionate appointment on the death of her son, Division Bench of Prakash Shrivastava, CJ and Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J., held that the daughter-in-law is bound by the undertaking by which she had obtained a compassionate appointment.
In the present case, a widow lady aged about 80 years challenged the order of Single Judge, whereby WP No. 3672(W) of 2019 was dismissed.
Further, the record reflected that the petition was filed by the appellant seeking the issuance of a direction to respondent 2 to provide financial assistance to the appellant for survival and medical treatment.
Reason for filing of the above petition
The Husband of the appellant had died long back, and her son was working as a primary school teacher but unfortunately, he also died. The daughter-in-law of the appellant had applied for compassionate appointment in the school and had also filed an affidavit stating that she will bear the responsibility of all the maintenance with the treatment of the appellant in future and forever.
Though the respondent 9 did not do as stated by her in an affidavit.
As no decision on the representation of the appellant was taken, the appellant approaches the Writ Court by filing the petition but the learned Single Judge by the order under challenge had dismissed the petition taking the view that the appellant’s son aged about 37 years is in a position to look after her.
Appellant’s counsel submitted that the only surviving son of the appellant was unemployed and was not in a position to look after the appellant.
High Court stated that once respondent 9 had obtained the compassionate appointment by giving the undertaking to maintain and extend medical assistance to the appellant, then she was bound by that.
Therefore, in view of the above present appeal was disposed of and the appellant was granted liberty to file an appropriate detailed representation before respondent 6 who will duly consider her grievance of the appellant and pass an appropriate order after giving an opportunity to the appellant and respondent 9. [Durgabala Mdandal v. State of W.B., 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 169, decided on 20-1-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the appellant:
Mr Rabindra Nath Mahata
Mr T.M. Saha
Ms Aninda Bhattacharya
For respondent 6:
Mr Ranjan Saha
For respondent 6:
Mr Sudip Sarkar