48 27.07.2026 Court No.24 pg. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 4400 of 2023 Utpal Shil -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Mr. Arghya Kamal Das Ms. Manisa Mandal Ms. Babita Pramanik … For the petitioner Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Ms. Sneha Chatterjee … For the State Mr. Arunava Banerjee Ms. Simantika Dasgupta Mr. Sk. Qareeb … For the North Bengal University 1. The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate ground. His father was serving as Group-D staff of a College. He died-in-harness on 1st July, 2008. The widow of the employee submitted representation before the College authority for appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. The College forwarded the same to the Director of Public Instruction in the year 2012. Since thereafter, there has been no movement of the file of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied before the College authority repeatedly for appointing him on compassionate basis. He has been appointed on temporary basis to tide over the financial crisis faced by the family. The application for compassionate 2 appointment was, however, not proceeded with either by the College authority or by the Director of Public Instruction. 3. A detailed representation filed in September, 2022 before the authority is also alleged to be kept pending. The instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2023 but the same did not proceed further. 4. The petitioner seeks direction upon the Director of Public Instruction to take a decision on his prayer seeking appointment on compassionate ground. 5. Upon hearing the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that the father of the petitioner died on 1st July, 2008. Though the application seeking compassionate appointment was made by the mother of the petitioner immediately thereafter, but it appears that, the said application was not proceeded with diligently by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was provided temporary engagement on daily-wage basis (no work no pay) and the petitioner seemed to be satisfied with the remuneration paid to him. 7. Had the petitioner been aggrieved with the non-action on the part of the authority to consider and dispose of his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner ought to have 3 diligently proceeded with his claim. Apart from filing the representation before the authority, the petitioner did not proceed further. The petitioner ought to have approached the Court within a reasonable period when his application seeking compassionate appointment was not responded to by the authority. 8. The law relating to appointment on compassionate ground is very well settled. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment on compassionate ground is considered on urgent basis, to tide over the immediate financial crisis faced by the family on the death of the sole bread- winner. 9. In the instant case, the employee concerned expired on 1st July, 2008. Late in July 2026, there is hardly any scope to show compassion to the petitioner. 10. Submission of the petitioner that he applied in proper time and the authority did not take a decision in the matter, cannot be a ground for interference in the matter nearly eighteen years after the death of the employee. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 11. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 4 12. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 13. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)