Compassionate appointment eligibility turns on actual financial dependency, not the applicant’s marital status.

The petitioner’s father, Swapan Kumar Roy, a Group-D employee at Harinkhawa L.N. High School, died in harness on 20 October 2022, leaving behind his wife and two daughters.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 21 December 2023 and submitted the requisite particulars along with no-objection certificates from the other legal heirs.

She had been married in 2004 and instituted a matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage on 8 October 2024, which was pending when the District Inspector of Schools rejected her application by order dated 22 May 2025.

The rejection was based on the reasoning that she was married on the date of her father’s death, had filed the divorce proceeding belatedly, and therefore was not a dependent family member.

The marriage was subsequently dissolved by decree dated 2 December 2025.

The petitioner challenged the rejection before the High Court, contending that the authority had misconstrued the Special Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. Purnima Das.

Whether the petitioner’s marital status, including the fact that she was married and had not obtained a divorce on the date of her father’s death, could by itself disentitle her from consideration for compassionate appointment.

Whether the District Inspector of Schools was required to independently determine whether the petitioner was entirely dependent on her deceased father’s earnings at the time of his death, irrespective of her marital status.

Whether the rejection order dated 22 May 2025 was legally sustainable in the absence of an independent finding on the petitioner’s actual dependency.

The Court applied the principle governing compassionate appointment that eligibility depends upon the applicant’s actual dependency upon the deceased Government employee and the existence of financial distress, rather than merely upon marital status.

It relied on the Special Bench decision in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Purnima Das & Ors., FMA 1277 of 2015, which struck down the restrictive expression “unmarried” preceding “daughter” in the relevant notifications dated 2 April 2008 and 3 February 2009, while clarifying that a married daughter must establish that she was entirely dependent on the earnings of her deceased parent on the date of death.

Thus, marriage or divorce is not determinative; the controlling consideration is proven dependency on the deceased employee’s earnings.

The District Inspector rejected the petitioner’s claim solely because she was married when her father died and had instituted divorce proceedings nearly two years later.

The High Court held that this approach incorrectly treated marital status as conclusive of non-dependency.

Although Purnima Das requires a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment to establish complete dependency on the deceased parent, it does not permit automatic exclusion merely because she was married.

Since the authority made no independent factual determination as to whether the petitioner was entirely dependent on her father’s earnings at the time of his death, the rejection was founded on an erroneous interpretation of the governing law and could not be sustained.

The matter was remanded to the District Inspector to reconsider the petitioner’s application and determine, irrespective of her marital status, whether she was entirely dependent on her deceased father’s earnings at the time of his death.

The authority was directed to pass a reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within five weeks from communication of the judgment, and to communicate the decision to her forthwith.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.