16 28.07. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. WPA 16522 of 2026 Partha Das Vs. The State of West Bengal and others. --------------- Mr. Vivek Basu, Ms. Ipsita Ghosh. … For the petitioner. Ms. Sneha Dutta, Mr. Srinjoy Das. … For the State. 1. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, after his mother, who herself was employed on compassionate appointment, had given up the job as she was physically incapacitated. 3. Several rounds of litigation later, most of which are not germane on this juncture, the authorities concerned have dealt with the matter in accordance with law and by their order of August 17, 2023, which has been assailed herein, held that there was no proof of the petitioner’s mother being physically incapacitated “on that date” i.e. January 15, 2023. 4. A reference is important to a contempt proceeding initiated by the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by its order dated August 13, 2024. By the said order, the petitioner was granted 2 liberty to approach the appropriate Tribunal, as a contempt proceeding may not have been the suitable remedy. 5. Though the petitioner ought to have approached the Tribunal at that point of time, i.e. in August 2024, according to the petitioner, the Tribunal was not wholly functional since September 8, 2025, on account whereof the petitioner did not approach the same. It is only thereafter the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had sufficient documents, which he was unable to produce on the date of the hearing. He prays that an opportunity be given or at least be created to enable the authorities to consider these documents and in the light thereof to decide the issue regarding his application for compassionate appointment. 7. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the authorities dated August 17, 2023 is bad in law or that it cannot be sustained. 8. However, since the petitioner has certain documents, which may support his case that his mother was physically incapacitated on that particular date, leave is given to the to produce such documents to the concerned authority being the respondent no. 2 herein by July 31, 2026. 3 9. The respondent no. 2 will consider the documents and if found genuine and acceptable, he will be at liberty to alter or amend the order of August 17, 2023. 10. With the afore-stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)