31 0033..0099..22002266 Ct. No.15 b.das WPA 15105 of 2025 Ashima Halder & Anr. Vs. The State of W.B. & Ors. Mr. Kaushik Chandra Gupta …for the petitioners. Mr. Madhu Jana Ms. Puja Sonkar …for the State. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner, Hemanta Kr. Halder was a Panchayat Clerk attached to Suti-I Development Block. He died in harness on 1st October, 2000 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. The 1st petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in place of her husband before the concerned authority on 20th October, 2000 which was forwarded by the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer to the Director of Panchayat and Rural Development Department for taking necessary steps on 3rd November, 2000. Upon due consideration of the application, the police verification and medical examination of the 1st petitioner were complete and by a letter issued on 11th June, 2023, the Assistant Director of Panchayat and Rural Development informed the District Magistrate, Murshidabad that the 1st 2 petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Panchayat Peon. However, such appointment was not granted by the authority thereafter. In the meantime, there was an embargo on compassionate appointment and the appointment of the 1st petitioner was withheld. The embargo was lifted in 2007. No step was taken by the authority even after lifting of the embargo for appointment of the 1st petitioner. Since the 1st petitioner reached a mature age by then, she submitted an application for compassionate appointment of her daughter/the 2nd petitioner before the authority. Pursuant to such proposal, a report was submitted by the three-men Enquiry Committee which strongly recommended appointment of the 2nd petitioner upon consideration of the no objection issued by the other successors of the deceased employee and acute financial condition of the family. The proposal was sent to the Commissioner of Panchayat and Rural Development, West Bengal by the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Murshidabad by a letter issued on 19th September, 2012. Though the proposal was processed, no decision was taken by the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development or the District Magistrate. The issue was taken up for consideration by the Additional Director, Panchayats and Rural Development, West Bengal and by a letter issued on 19th March, 2025, 3 the said authority has recorded that such a delicate situation could have been averted had Smt. Ashima Halder been appointed by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad immediately after receiving the letter issued by the Directorate of Panchayat and Rural Development on 11th June, 2003. In other words, the authority has admitted the laches and failure on the part of the concerned District Magistrate in issuing the appointment letter in favour of the 1st petitioner which resulted in a fresh prayer being submitted by the 1st petitioner for appointment of her daughter, the 2nd petitioner herein. The only ground for rejection of the prayer of the 2nd petitioner made out in the said letter is a reference to clause 12(b) of the notification no.251-Emp dated 3rd December, 2013 issued by the Labour Department. The said clause envisages that an appointment/ offer made on compassionate ground cannot be transferred to any other person and any such request shall be rejected. It appears that the notification was published on 3rd December, 2013 and has not been given retrospective effect. Since the application for appointment of the 2nd petitioner was made in 2010 by the 1st petitioner, the notification has no manner of application in the said request. No other ground has been taken by the authority in turning down the prayer of the petitioners. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the authority in Rahul S/o Ramnarayan Madankar & Anr. Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2026 LiveLaw SC 693 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when the claim has remained pending since 2016, the object of compassionate appointment would be defeated if, after such prolonged delay, the matter is again left at the stage at which the respondent ought to have acted years ago. The judgment also records that having remained silent for a prolonged period, the respondent could not thereafter turn around belatedly and deprive the appellants of the benefit available under the scheme, since such a technical construction adopted by the authority would place the benefit of the scheme at the mercy of administrative delay and would defeat the fairness inherent in the administration of a beneficial scheme. The ratio decidendi of the said judgment is squarely applicable in the fact situation of the present case where the applications for compassionate appointment of both the petitioners have been delayed at the behest of the authority and due to no default on the part of the petitioners. In the said backdrop and keeping in mind the beneficial scheme adopted by the authority to relieve the family members of the deceased from penury, compassionate appointment ought to be granted in favour of the 2nd petitioner by the concerned authority. 5 Accordingly, clause (v) of the Memo dated 19th March, 2025 issued by the Additional Director, Panchayat and Rural Development, West Bengal is quashed/set aside. The District Magistrate, Murshidabad, being the 7th respondent herein, is directed to grant appointment to the 2nd petitioner on compassionate ground upon the said petitioner complying with all requisite formalities, at the earliest, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)