IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate Side 28.07.2026 S/L. 34 Court No. 4 (Naba) F.M.A. 782 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Bibek Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ujjal Ray, Ms. Arunima Laha, Ms. Ankita Singh ...for the Appellant 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant, who was the writ petitioner. He approached the writ Court seeking issuance of direction in favour of the petitioner’s compassionate appointment. 2. The writ petitioner’s father died while in harness on 25.04.2010. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was a minor at that time. 3. Applications were made more than four years thereafter by the petitioner’s mother and the petitioner one after the other on 11.06.2014 and 17.06.2014, respectively claiming benefit of compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner’s claim was considered, and was rejected as a belated claim, by an order dated 13.10.2020. Rejection order dated 13.10.2020 was duly communicated to the writ 2 petitioner, which forms part of the writ proceeding. The rejection remains not challenged till date. Thereafter, as per averments made in the writ petition, the writ petitioner requested a reconsideration. 4. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is obvious that after rejection of his claim vide letter dated 13.10.2020, a new case was made out alleging that the writ petitioner’s mother was incapacitated or ineligible at the time of demise of the petitioner’s father and therefore, petitioner be extended the benefit of Clause 10(aa) of Notification dated 01.03.2016, bearing No. 26- Emp. The petitioner claimed consideration of his request as a belated claim. 5. The writ court did not entertain the writ petitioner’s plea despite recommendation in favour of the petitioner by the Commandant’s letter dated 29.09.2021. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that since the authorities had found the writ petitioner’s claim valid, they should have issued orders in favour of the writ petitioner. On account of failure on part of the authorities to discharge their responsibility, there was an occasion for the writ court to issue a direction in this regard. 3 7. The writ court, however, has dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition, which order is unsustainable, having regard to the facts and circumstances which we have noted above. 8. We have considered the submission, and gone through the record. 9. The claim of the appellant, based on contemporaneous applications 4 years after demise of his father was processed, considered and rejected by the authorities by a letter dated 13.10.2020. 10. Under the circumstance, the appellant was either required to put the rejection (13.10.2020) to challenge; or to accept his fate as it was. The appellant, however, chose not to challenge the rejection order and make out a new case by seeking reconsideration raising a new plea, more than a decade after his father’s death, that at the time of demise of his father, his mother was ineligible for compassionate appointment and, therefore, the petitioner was required to be considered in her place under the exceptional circumstance under Clause 10(aa) of 26-Emp. dated 01.03.2016. 11. We do not find the appellant’s claim inspiring any confidence, let alone forming the basis of a right to claim issuance of a direction based on such 4 application which was a product of afterthought, and without challenging the rejection order dated 13.10.2020. 12. It appears from the record that the appellant has raised the new plea more than a decade after the demise of his father. Therefore, there was no occasion for the writ court to grant relief based on such an approach to the writ court, which ex facie lacks bona fide. 13. In exercise of extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge did not find a case made out for issuance of any direction in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner. 14. In view of our above consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 7750 of 2026. 15. The intra-Court appeal is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)