17.08.2026 21 sdas WPA 1672 of 2025 Sourav Chatterjee Vs. West Bengal Gramin Bank & Ors. Mr. Indranath Mitra .….. for the petitioner Mr. Baidurya Ghosal Mr. Saikat Mukherjee ….. for the respondent Bank 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that the application for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent Bank without any application of mind. 3. The petitioner’s father had joined the Mallabhum Gramin Bank, one of the constituents of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, which has merged with the West Bengal Gramin Bank (respondent no. 1 herein). The petitioner’s father has rendered service from 1987 till his death sometime in 2021. He had risen in the ranks from the post of clerk to the post of Assistant Manager. The petitioner has applied for appointment on the ground of compassionate appointment in the died-in-harness category sometime in November 2021, which was rejected on March 24, 2022. In fact, the petitioner had made a fresh application on October 5, 2024 which has not yet been considered. The reason for non- 2 consideration is quite understandable, that it had already been rejected earlier on March 24, 2022. 4. Thus, at this stage, the petitioner is really concerned with the rejection of March 24, 2022 rather than the fresh application made on October 5, 2024. 5. The rejection of March 24, 2022 is about as cryptic as it can get. It does not reveal that there has been any application of mind. The conclusion that the petitioner is ineligible sounds arbitrary and whimsical. There is no finding to support the conclusion. 6. Though at the time of hearing Mr. Ghosal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has argued that the petitioner’s father, as it appears from his Death Certificate, was about 57 years of age at the material point of time and hence not covered by the scheme of appointment under compassionate ground which specifies that the scheme extends only to the family of the employees who were below the age of 55 years. 7. Even though such an argument may seem acceptable, it still remain only an argument. This does not find any reference in the order of rejection. Mr. Ghosal’s submission in an attempt to substantiate the order cannot be accepted. 8. It is absolutely unclear from the order of March 24, 2022 rejecting the application of the petitioner, as to whether the candidature of the petitioner had 3 indeed been rejected on the ground as stated by Mr. Ghosal. This rejection cannot be left to surmises and conjectures. It ought to have been more clear and indicative of the provision on which it had relied upon to reject the petitioner’s case. 9. In the circumstances aforestated, this order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 10. In view of the above, the respondent authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner made on October 5, 2024 afresh without in any manner being influenced by the fact, that an earlier application had been rejected by the selfsame authority. 11. The consideration should be reflected by way of a reasoned and speaking order by the authorities. 12. Let the reasoned and speaking order be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 13. The resultant order will be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 14. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 15. There will be no order as to costs. 16. All parties shall act on the serve copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)