Compassionate Appointment: Applicant must establish heirship to deceased employee.

The applicant, Ganesh Ghosh, filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking compassionate appointment after the death of his alleged mother, Swapna Karmakar (Ghosh), who expired on March 28, 2020, while in service

The applicant claimed to be the son of the deceased employee but failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate this claim

The deceased employee had previously submitted a letter dated January 16, 2012, to the Regional P.F. Commissioner (W.B.) to record her husband's name, Sri Uttam Kumar Ghosh, in her service records, but did not mention any son

Furthermore, the succession certificate awarded to Sri Uttam Kumar Ghosh regarding the estate of the deceased also did not mention the applicant's name

1. Whether the applicant, Ganesh Ghosh, established that he is the son of the deceased employee, Swapna Karmakar (Ghosh), to be eligible for compassionate appointment

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs applications to the tribunal for relief

The implicit legal principle applied was that an applicant seeking relief must establish a prima facie case and provide supporting evidence for their claims, particularly concerning familial relationships for compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claim that he was the son of the deceased employee, Swapna Karmakar (Ghosh)

However, the applicant failed to produce any material evidence to support this contention

The Tribunal noted that the deceased employee herself, in a letter dated January 16, 2012, to the Regional P.F. Commissioner, had only mentioned her husband's name for service records and did not record the name of her son

Additionally, the succession certificate issued in respect of the deceased Smt. Swapna Ghosh also did not include the applicant's name

Given the absence of any concrete evidence establishing the applicant's relationship as the son of the deceased employee, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not substantiated his claim

Accordingly, the O.A. was dismissed at the admission stage itself, with no order as to costs