IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side 17.07.2026 S/L No. 05 Ct. No. 4 (Naba) W.P.S.T. 4 of 2026 Smt. Kalyani Sarkar Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Nupur Choudhuri ...for the Petitioner Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. A.G.P., Ms. Runu Mukherjee ...for the State 1. Heard the learned advocates representing the parties. 2. The present writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") and had approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 276 of 2025, assailing the action of the respondent authorities in denying her claim for compassionate appointment. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the materials placed on record, the Tribunal, by its order dated 18th August, 2025, 2 dismissed the Original Application and declined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order and being dissatisfied with the findings recorded therein, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal. 3. The foundational facts giving rise to the present lis are not in dispute. The petitioner's husband was serving as an Inspector of Rationing Office, Halisahar, District-Nadia under the Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal. While in service, he unfortunately met with a fatal road accident and died in harness on 21st January, 2016. His untimely demise left the petitioner and the surviving members of the family in a state of acute financial distress. It is the petitioner's case that immediately after the death of her husband, she approached the competent authority seeking compassionate appointment with a view to mitigating the sudden financial crisis faced by the bereaved family. 4. It appears from the records that the petitioner submitted her claim for compassionate appointment on 13th May, 2016, i.e., within about four months of the demise of her husband. However, despite the claim remaining under consideration for several years, no final decision was taken by the authorities. Ultimately, the Deputy Director of Rationing, 3 Barrackpore, Food and Supplies Department, by Memo No. 919/DDR/BKP/2023 dated 14th August, 2023, rejected the petitioner's claim. Being aggrieved by such rejection, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal. 5. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Tribunal, while dismissing the Original Application, proceeded principally on the premise that the petitioner had failed to submit her application in the prescribed proforma within the stipulated period and, therefore, was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. According to the learned advocate, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the true factual and legal position governing the petitioner's claim. 6. According to the learned advocate, once it is accepted that the petitioner's pending claim was required to be considered under Notification No. 26- Emp. dated 1st March, 2016, the controversy narrows down to a singular issue, namely, whether the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim solely on the ground that her application had not been submitted in the prescribed proforma. It is argued that such a technical objection could not have been made the sole basis for denying the substantive benefit of compassionate appointment, particularly when the petitioner had admittedly approached the authorities within a reasonable time after the death of her husband and 4 her request had remained pending before the administration for several years. 7. The learned advocate further submits that the issue relating to rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment merely on the ground of non- submission of the prescribed proforma is no longer open to debate, as the same has already been authoritatively considered and decided by Coordinate Benche of this Court. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decisions rendered in Mrinal Kanti Das versus The Joint Secretary, Public Works Department (WB) & Others (W.P.S.T. No. 36 of 2025) and Akash Ranjan Ray versus The State of West Bengal & Others (W.P.S.T. No. 147 of 2024). It is submitted that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court held that where an applicant had approached the competent authority within the relevant period and the claim remained pending, the authorities could not reject such claim merely on the hyper-technical ground that the application was not submitted in the prescribed proforma, particularly when the applicant had otherwise disclosed the intention to seek compassionate appointment and the authorities themselves had kept the matter pending without requiring the defect, if any, to be rectified. 8. Placing strong reliance upon the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the present case is squarely covered by the principles 5 laid down therein. It is, therefore, contended that the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of rejection passed by the Deputy Director of Rationing cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed by following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid Coordinate Bench decisions and by directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with Notification No. 26-Emp. dated 1st March, 2016 and the settled principles of law governing the field. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State authorities, opposed the writ petition and supported the order passed by the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Deputy Director of Rationing rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. 11. It is contended by the learned A.G.P. that the petitioner is not entitled to derive any benefit under Clause 10(aa) of Notification No. 26-Emp. dated 1st March, 2016, which specifically deals with cases of "Belated Request" for compassionate appointment. According to the learned A.G.P., the said provision contemplates that a request for compassionate appointment must be made in the prescribed proforma and within the time frame stipulated therein. It is submitted that mere submission of a 6 representation or an application expressing an intention to seek compassionate appointment would not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the scheme unless such application is made in the prescribed format. 12. Developing the aforesaid submission, the learned A.G.P. argues that although the petitioner had approached the authorities after the death of her husband, she failed to submit the application in the prescribed proforma within the period of five years contemplated under Notification No. 26-Emp. dated 1st March, 2016. According to the respondents, compliance with the prescribed procedure is an essential requirement for invoking the benefit of the compassionate appointment scheme, and any deviation there from disentitles an applicant from claiming consideration under Clause 10(aa). 13. It is further submitted that the scheme governing compassionate appointment is statutory in nature and must be implemented strictly in accordance with the conditions contained therein. The authorities, therefore, were justified in insisting upon submission of the application in the prescribed proforma within the stipulated period. Since the petitioner failed to fulfil this essential procedural requirement, her claim was rightly rejected by the competent authority. 14. The learned A.G.P. further contends that the Tribunal, upon examining the relevant records and the provisions of Notification No. 26-Emp., rightly 7 concluded that the petitioner had not complied with the mandatory requirements of the scheme. The Tribunal, therefore, correctly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Director of Rationing and dismissed the Original Application. According to the learned A.G.P., the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the applicable notification and the materials on record, and do not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 15. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 16. We have also carefully perused the pleadings, the materials brought on record, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the order of rejection issued by the Deputy Director of Rationing, Barrackpore, as well as the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 17. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that certain foundational facts are undisputed. It is not in controversy that the petitioner's husband died in harness on 21st January, 2016 while serving under the Food and Supplies Department. It is equally undisputed that the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased employee, approached the competent authority seeking compassionate appointment 8 immediately after the demise of her husband and submitted her application on 13th May, 2016. Thus, the intention of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment was made known to the authorities within the prescribe time after the death of the deceased employee. The petitioner's claim remained pending with the authorities for a considerable period before it ultimately came to be rejected by the Deputy Director of Rationing, Barrackpore by Memo No. 919/DDR/BKP/2023 dated 14th August, 2023. 18. The principal ground on which the petitioner's claim has been rejected is that the application was not submitted in the prescribed proforma. In our considered opinion, such an issue is no longer res- integra. The question as to whether submission of an application in the prescribed proforma is mandatory so as to defeat an otherwise genuine claim for compassionate appointment has already been authoritatively considered by Coordinate Benches of this Court in Mrinal Kanti Das and Akash Ranjan Ray. The legal principles emerging from the aforesaid decisions squarely govern the controversy involved in the present case. 19. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment rendered in Akash Ranjay Ray (supra), wherein the Coordinate Bench observed as follows: “ 22. The Co-ordinate Bench held that once an application is made within the requisite 9 time, completion of the requisite formalities including submission of proforma was required to be followed up by the authorities under Clause 10(bb) of 26-Emp. by meeting and assisting the family of the deceased Government employee so as to ensure fulfillment of necessary formalities. The same having not done, rejection on the ground of non-submission of an application on proforma was held to be unsustainable. 23. The Court considered the object and scope of submission of a proforma application, wherein all the relevant parameters were required to be filled up by the applicant for facilitating a comprehensive consideration of the claim, which was subsequently submitted by the present petitioner. It is nobody’s case that the authorities could not consider the petitioner’s claim for want of any details. In fact perusal of the report of the Three Men Screening cum Enquiry Committee reveals that petitioner’s claim was considered with reference to the relevant parameters. 24. Having considered the object and purpose, the Co-ordinate Bench held that the proforma application has significance at the time of consideration of the claim and does not have any relevance to the time frame for 10 making an application. Judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench is binding on this Court and the petitioner’s claim is required to be considered in view of the law and in compliance with the Judgment the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Mrinal Kanti Das (supra).” 20. The aforesaid observations unequivocally lay down that once an applicant expresses his or her intention to seek compassionate appointment by submitting an application within the prescribed period, the obligation does not end with the applicant alone. Clause 10(bb) of Notification No. 26-Emp. casts a corresponding duty upon the competent authority to extend necessary assistance to the bereaved family in completing the procedural formalities, including submission of the prescribed proforma. The object of requiring a proforma application is merely to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of the claim by obtaining the necessary particulars from the applicant. Such procedural requirement cannot be elevated to a rigid or inflexible condition so as to defeat the beneficial object underlying the scheme for compassionate appointment. 21. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's claim could not be examined for want of necessary particulars or that the authorities were handicapped in processing the application owing to absence of the prescribed 11 proforma. On the contrary, the materials on record demonstrate that the petitioner's claim remained under active consideration for several years before ultimately being rejected. The rejection is founded solely upon a technical objection regarding the prescribed proforma, without there being any finding that the petitioner was otherwise ineligible or that her claim suffered from any substantive deficiency. 22. The very purpose of a scheme for compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of a Government employee who dies in harness, leaving the dependants in financial distress. Such a beneficial scheme ought to receive a liberal and purposive construction rather than a narrow and hyper-technical interpretation. Procedural prescriptions are intended to facilitate the process of consideration and not to frustrate the substantive right of consideration itself. Once the petitioner had approached the authorities within the relevant period and the authorities permitted the matter to remain pending without taking steps contemplated under Clause 10(bb) of Notification No. 26-Emp., they cannot subsequently reject the claim by attributing the failure to submit the prescribed proforma solely to the petitioner. 23. In view of the law laid down by the Coordinate Benches in Mrinal Kanti Das (supra) and Akash Ranjay Ray (supra), we are unable to sustain the order of rejection dated 14th August, 2023 passed by 12 the Deputy Director of Rationing, Barrackpore. Consequently, the order dated 18th August, 2025 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 276 of 2025, affirming the said rejection, is equally unsustainable in law, as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the settled legal position governing the issue. 24. Accordingly, the communication dated 14th August, 2023 bearing Memo No. 919/DDR/BKP/2023 issued by the Deputy Director of Rationing, Barrackpore, Food and Supplies Department, is hereby quashed and set aside. 25. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. While undertaking such exercise, the authorities shall not reject or refuse consideration of the petitioner's claim on the ground of non- submission or delayed submission of the prescribed proforma application. The claim of the petitioner shall be considered on its own merits, subject to her satisfying the other eligibility criteria and fulfilling the requisite conditions and formalities contemplated under the applicable policy. 26. The respondent authorities shall complete the entire exercise of reconsideration and take a reasoned decision thereon. If the petitioner is found otherwise eligible, all consequential benefits flowing from such consideration shall also be extended to her. The 13 aforesaid exercise shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. 27. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the order dated 18th August, 2025 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 276 of 2025 cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. 28. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed in the above terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)