Dearness and medical allowances cannot be included in family-income calculations for compassionate appointment eligibility.

The petitioner’s father, an Assistant Teacher, died in harness on 15 November 2017 at the age of 56 years.

The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under the died-in-harness category, and the school’s Managing Committee recommended his appointment.

The District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Purba Bardhaman, rejected the claim by order dated 4 February 2020, holding that the family’s income, calculated on the basis of 60% of the family pension, exceeded the initial gross salary of a Group-D employee and that the family was therefore not in “extreme financial hardship”.

In calculating the family pension, the authority included dearness allowance, interim relief and medical allowance, arriving at a gross pension of Rs.31,694 and 60% thereof at Rs.22,348, as against the initial gross salary of a Group-D employee of Rs.13,990.

The petitioner challenged the calculation by relying on Bitasoke Mahata v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. and Suchismita Khatua v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Whether the District Inspector of Schools correctly calculated the petitioner’s family income for determining eligibility for compassionate appointment by including dearness allowance and medical allowance in the family pension.

Whether the impugned order dated 4 February 2020, rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the family was not in extreme financial hardship, was legally sustainable.

Whether the matter required remand for fresh calculation and reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim in accordance with the applicable notification and precedent.

The Court applied Schedule V to Rules 20 and 21 of the School Education Department Notification No. 697-ES/S/1S-18/08 dated 9 July 2009, which governs assessment of extreme financial hardship for compassionate appointment.

Under the applicable rule, provident fund, gratuity and 40% of the family pension for the first seven years are excluded, while 60% of the family pension and income from other sources may be considered.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Bitasoke Mahata v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., the Court held that dearness allowance and medical allowance cannot be treated as components of family income for this purpose because the beneficial rule must be applied according to its plain language without importing additional components.

The Court also followed Suchismita Khatua v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., which held that inclusion of dearness allowance, house rent allowance and medical allowance in calculating family income was impermissible and directed recalculation in accordance with Bitasoke Mahata.

The District Inspector treated the gross family pension—including dearness allowance, interim relief and medical allowance—as the basis for determining 60% of the family pension, thereby producing a figure higher than the initial salary of a Group-D employee.

However, the governing notification did not permit dearness allowance or medical allowance to be added in this manner, and the binding reasoning in Bitasoke Mahata required the authority to apply the rule strictly and beneficially.

Since the rejection was founded on an impermissible method of calculating family income, the finding that the family was not in extreme financial hardship could not stand.

The Court therefore set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to undertake a fresh calculation in accordance with the notification and the applicable precedents.

The District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Purba Bardhaman, was directed to recalculate the petitioner’s family income strictly in accordance with the applicable notification and the decision in Bitasoke Mahata, and to pass and communicate a fresh reasoned decision within six weeks of receiving the judgment.

If the petitioner was found eligible after recalculation, the State respondents were directed to take immediate steps for his compassionate appointment within six weeks of that decision.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.