SUSHANTA DAS vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha

WPA 603 of 2025

Sushanta Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Shreyashi Maity

For the State :- Mrs. Sabnam De Bardhan, Adv.
Mrs. Kakali Naskar, Adv.

th
Heard on :- 20 April, 2026.

th
Judgment on :- 20 April, 2026.
Amrita Sinha, J.:-

1. The petitioner’s father was serving as Work Guard in the Public Works
th
Directorate under Malda Highway Division. He died-in-harness on 4 August,
2017. The petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate appointment in
rd
favour of his son on 23 August, 2017. An application by the petitioner was
th
made on 12 September, 2017 for providing compassionate appointment. The
th
said application stood rejected by the authority on 12 July, 2023 by holding
that the petitioner failed to apply in the prescribed format within the
stipulated time period of two years.

2. The petitioner applied for re-consideration of the prayer for
compassionate appointment. The same has been rejected on the same line by

2

th
passing order on 5 January, 2024. The rejection is under challenge in the
instant writ petition.
st
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to the notification dated 1
March, 2016 published by the Labour Department amending the earlier
rd
notification of the Department, being 251-Emp dated 3 December, 2013. The
amended provision being Clause/Para No.10(bb) added to the parent
rd
notification dated 3 December, 2013, runs as follows:
“ 10(bb). The concerned authority in the department/office should
meet the members of the family of the deceased Govt. servant
immediately after his death to advise and assist them in getting
appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant should be called in
person at the very first stage and should be advised in person about the
requirement and formalities to be completed by him. A record of such
meeting should be kept with the office of the controlling authority and
appointing authority. ”
4. The amended notification also mentions that a simplified application
form/proforma will be introduced soon and will be sent to all the departments
in due course. A checklist shall be prepared by the Labour Department and
would be sent to all Departments to examine each case properly and
objectively. Each case must be examined apropos the checklist, report of the
screening-cum-enquiry committee and the application of the concerned
applicant.

5. It has been submitted that the aforesaid revised provision was never
made known to the petitioner. The petitioner applied for compassionate

3

appointment with promptitude as the family was left without any income on
the death of his father, but the same has been illegally and arbitrarily
rejected by the authority.
6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by this Court on
th
16 June, 2025 in WPA 7615 of 2025 ( Bishnu Rajak v. The State of
West Bengal & Ors. ) wherein the Court was pleased to decide a similar
issue.
7. Prayer has been made to direct the respondent authority to reconsider
the prayer of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

8. Learned advocate representing the respondents relies on the report
prepared by the Executive Engineer, Malda Highway Division, Public Works
(Road) Directorate, being the respondent no.4. The same ground of non-filing
of the application in the prescribed format within the stipulated time period
has been highlighted. It has been submitted that the petitioner was a major
at the time of death of his father and he ought to have submitted his
application in the prescribed format within the stipulated time period.
9. It has been contended that as the application was not made in
accordance with the scheme, the same has been rightly rejected by the
authority. Prayer has been made not to interfere in the instant case.
10. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on
perusal of the documents placed before this Court, it is evident that the

4

application seeking compassionate appointment was made by the widow less
than a month after the death of the employee. The application made by the
petitioner was made immediately a month after the death of the employee.
st
11. The amended notification came into force on 1 March, 2016. The same
was very much in force and applicable when the employee died in harness.
The petitioner was never made aware of the amended provision. The authority
did not meet the members of the petitioner’s family after the death of his
father. No assistance was provided to the family members for getting
compassionate appointment.

12. The application made by the petitioner seeking compassionate
appointment was already on record since September 2017. None of the
authorities bothered to advice the petitioner or the widow about the
requirement and the formalities to be complied with for the purpose of
obtaining compassionate appointment. The revised provision of the
notification requires a record of the meeting to be kept in the office of the
controlling and appointing authority. There is no record to that effect.
13. The Court in Bishnu Rajak (supra) noted that the amended provision is
an obligatory one and the authority ought to have followed the same.
14. In the instant case, it is seen that despite an application being made by
the petitioner in September 2017 after the death of his father in August 2017,
the same stood rejected in the year 2023 on the ground of not making the
application in the prescribed format within the stipulated time period. The

5

authority ought to have brought to the notice of the family members of the
deceased regarding the requirements of filing the application in the
prescribed format within the stipulated time period. The same not being done,
there has been violation of the amended provision of the Rules relating to
compassionate appointment. The petitioner cannot be blamed for not filing
the application in the prescribed format within the stipulated time period.
15. Amendment was brought in the parent notification extending the time
limit for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground. A
simplified proforma for making application was also introduced. The changes
were made so that the family members of the deceased could avail the benefit
of scheme. A beneficial legislation ought to be given the maximum publicity
so that the very purpose for legislating the same is achieved. The objective
with which the scheme is framed gets frustrated if the same is not acted upon
by the authority.
16. The primary reason to make the amendment was to ensure that the
family members of the deceased can be properly guided to make the
application seeking compassionate appointment to save the family of the
deceased to tide over the financial crisis faced on the death of the bread
winner. Each case was required to be examined individually. The requirement
of maintaining record of the meeting with the family member of the deceased
implies the mandatory obligation of the controlling and appointing authority
in drawing their attention about the existence of the scheme and the manner
how to proceed in accordance with the same.

6

17. The authority failed to appreciate the urgency and the immediacy with
which applications for compassionate appointments are to be dealt with.
Nearly nine years have elapsed from the date of death of the employee and his
heir is running from pillar to post and has been compelled to knock the doors
of justice to secure a job on compassionate ground for survival of the family.
Immediately on receipt of the application in the year 2017, the petitioner
ought to have been guided in the proper manner so that he could have taken
steps in accordance with the scheme.
18. The controlling and appointing authority have plainly failed and
neglected to act in terms of the amended provision of the scheme. In view of
th
the above, the rejection made by the authority initially on 12 July, 2023 and
th
later on 5 January, 2024 cannot be permitted to stand and are liable to be
set aside.
19. Both the rejections accordingly stand set aside being contrary to the
st
revised provision of the notification dated 1 March, 2016.
20. The concerned authority of the respondents is directed to re-consider
the prayer of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in
accordance with the amended provision of the scheme and dispose of the
same at the earliest but positively within a period of eight weeks from the
date of communication of this order.

21. If the petitioner is required to comply any further formalities for the
purpose of consideration of his application seeking compassionate

7

appointment, the same shall be made known to the petitioner in writing. The
petitioner shall be provided an opportunity of hearing for production of
necessary documents in support of his claim for compassionate appointment.
22. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner.
23. If the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is
accepted, then necessary consequential steps shall be taken by the authority
without any further delay.
24. The writ petition stands disposed of.
25. Exception of the petitioner to the report filed on behalf of the respondent
no.4 filed in Court today be retained with the records.
26. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
27. Urgent photocopy of the certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)


pg.