28th August, 2025 (D/L No.11) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.S.T.430 of 2013 Prasenjit Banerjee Versus State of West Bengal and others Mr. Shamim ul Bari, Ms. Asmita Mitra … for the petitioner. Ms. Sonal Sinha, Mr. Avishek Prasad … for the State. 1. The present writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘SAT’) who filed the Original Application bearing O.A. No.1166 of 2010 whereby and whereunder he sought a direction upon the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment and setting aside the rejection order dated 04.06.2009 issued by the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal. 2. When the matter was taken up on the last occasion i.e. on 21.08.2025, the learned AGP for the State informed us that the financial status of the family of the deceased employee was reconsidered and an intimation in this regard was sent to the learned AGP by the Additional Director 2 & Senior Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in Directorate of Health Services through a communication dated 13th August, 2025. 3. The instructions, which were communicated to the learned AGP, have been handed over to this court after due service upon the learned counsel for the petitioner and the relevant extract of the same is reproduced below: “The financial calculation satisfying the criteria laid down in the Labour Department Circular No. 30-EMP dated 02.04.2008 read with 114-EMP dated 14.08.2008 is as follows: i) 90% of the total salary last drawn by the deceased = 90% of Rs.13,220/- = Rs.11,898/-. ii) Monthly income of the family just after the death of the ex-employee, i.e. as on Oct, 2003=Rs.6,045/- (total family pension) + Rs.2,834/- (assuming 8% interest p.a. on total death benefit enjoyed i.e. Rs.4,25,112/-) = Rs.8879/-. It is clear that Sl. No.(ii) is less than Sl. No.(i). Hence, the prayer of the applicant, Prasenjit Banerjee, is eligible for appointment under compassionate appointment category.” 4. Upon going through the stand of the respondents, based on instructions dated 13.08.2025, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the relief claimed in the O.A. as well as in the writ petition has become infructuous. 5. Accordingly, pendency of the writ petition, in our opinion, therefore, would be futile and the writ 3 petition is, thus, disposed of based on the stand of the respondents, recorded above. 6. It is, therefore, expected that the authorities would proceed as per their instructions. 7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)