Court directed implementation of settlement distributing terminal benefits and pension, while requiring lawful consideration of compassionate appointment.

The petitioner, Mohammad Ali Arsh, claimed entitlement to compassionate appointment following the death of his father, Md. Abdur Rafique, who had been employed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (“KMC”) as an Inspector in the Department of Social Welfare and Urban Poverty Alleviation.

In the connected writ petition, the petitioner sought disbursement of his father’s terminal benefits.

The deceased died on 8 March 2014.

The petitioner’s mother, impleaded as respondent no. 9/10, claimed to be the deceased’s wife and asserted an entitlement to the terminal and pensionary benefits. The petitioner, however, claimed that she had been divorced by the deceased.

She had instituted Title Suit No. 306 of 2014 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah.

An order had previously restrained withdrawal of the service benefits pending disposal of the suit, while permitting the parties to seek appropriate relief before the civil court.

During the writ proceedings, the Court directed KMC to deposit the terminal benefits with the Registrar General. KMC deposited Rs. 11,35,623/- by NEFT in compliance with the Court’s order dated 20 January 2026.

On 21 August 2026, the private parties, being personally present and represented by their advocates, placed written settlements before the Court.

They agreed to divide the deposited terminal benefits in the ratio of 87.5% to the petitioner and 12.5% to respondent no. 9/10; divide arrear pension equally; pay future family pension exclusively to respondent no. 9/10 from August 2026; withdraw the pending miscellaneous case; and raise no objection to compassionate appointment being offered to the petitioner.

Whether the Court should give effect to the settlement between the petitioner and the private respondent concerning the deposited terminal benefits, arrear pension, and future family pension?

Whether the deposited terminal benefits should be disbursed in the agreed ratio of 87.5% to the petitioner and 12.5% to respondent no. 9/10?

Whether KMC should process the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment notwithstanding the dispute concerning the deceased employee’s service benefits?

Whether any further issue survived for adjudication after recording and implementing the settlement?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to dispose of the writ petitions in accordance with the voluntary settlement reached by the private parties.

The governing principle applied was that a lawful and voluntary settlement, personally affirmed by the parties and placed before the Court through their advocates, may be recorded and implemented where it resolves the inter se dispute and does not require adjudication of any surviving public-law issue.

The Court also applied the principle that a claim for compassionate appointment must be considered by the competent municipal authority in accordance with law, and that consent or no objection by a private claimant does not itself create an automatic right to appointment.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the principal dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 9/10 concerned their competing claims to the deceased employee’s terminal and pensionary benefits, which had already been secured by deposit with the Registrar General.

Since both private parties were present, identified by their advocates, and had voluntarily executed written settlements, the Court found it appropriate to implement their agreed arrangement rather than continue adjudicating the underlying dispute.

Accordingly, the Court directed disbursement of the fixed deposit and accrued interest in the agreed 87.5:12.5 ratio, directed KMC to divide arrear pension equally with interest up to July 2026, and directed exclusive payment of family pension to the widow from August 2026.

As the petitioner’s representation seeking compassionate appointment remained pending and the widow had expressed no objection, the Court directed KMC to decide the representation in accordance with law within six weeks, without itself granting the appointment.

The Registrar General was directed to encash the fixed deposit, including accrued interest, and disburse the amount in the ratio of 87.5% to the petitioner and 12.5% to respondent no. 9/10.

KMC was directed to distribute arrear pension equally between them, together with interest up to July 2026, while paying family pension exclusively to respondent no. 9/10 from August 2026.

The parties were to withdraw Misc. Case No. 49 of 2024 in Title Suit No. 306 of 2014.

KMC was further directed to decide the petitioner’s pending claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with law within six weeks from communication of the order.