18.08.2026 5 sdas WPA 19762 of 2026 Sri Subhrajit Santra Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh Mr. Suman Mukherjee .….. for the petitioner Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee Mr. Sourav Halder ……for the State 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. Mr. Bajpayee, learned Advocate appears for the State respondents. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved that his application for compassionate appointment in the place and stead of his mother, who expired on February 21, 2020, in harness, has been rejected. 4. The petitioner’s mother was employed as a General Duty Assistant (Group-D) under the administrative control of the respondent no. 6 and expired on February 21, 2020, at the age of 55 years, while she was still in service. 5. The petitioner’s mother left behind three sons, including the petitioner. The two other brothers of the petitioner have duly issued their no objection to the petitioner being appointed on compassionate ground. 2 6. In terms thereof, the petitioner applied on June 30, 2020 merely four months after the expiry of his mother. 7. This application for compassionate appointment was made on June 30, 2020 by way of a hand-written application on a plain paper and not on the proforma which is the proper way to apply. 8. However, the authorities had proceeded with such application of the petitioner and the concerned Chief Medical Officer of Health, Basirhat Health District, by his letter dated February 21, 2024, after a due process of enquiry had been conducted, forwarded the recommendation to the Director of Health Services, the respondent no. 2 herein. 9. The recommendation was considered by the respondent no. 3 and rejected on February 4, 2025, on the ground that the petitioner had not applied in the proforma and the application in the proforma had been made after a lapse of two years and ten months from the date of expiry of the deceased employee. Thus, the application was rejected under Clause 10(a) of the Labour Department Notification No. 26-Emp. dated March 1, 2016. 10. Upon rejection, the petitioner had prayed for review, which was also rejected by the Joint Director (Personnel), the respondent no. 4 herein, by the order 3 dated July 8, 2026. The rejection of the review was on the same ground as that of February 4, 2025. 11. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WPST 36 of 2025 (Mrinal Kanti Das vs. The Joint Secretary, Public Works Department (W.B.), & Ors.). 12. In the said decision it has been held as follows: “In a case where the plain paper application is submitted within time and the authority is conscious of such request from the dependents of the Government servant, left in penury due to sudden loss of the bread earner, Clause 10(bb) of 26- Emp. assumes significance. In such a situation, if the authorities have not discharge their responsibility of meeting the family members earlier, then at least after making an application on plain paper, they should immediately meet and/or advice and assist the dependents in availing the benefit of compassionate appointment, subject to eligibility.” 13. Mr. Bajpayee, learned Advocate appearing for the State, submits that since the application was not made in the prescribed format, the authorities did not take into account the hand-written application made by the petitioner. The application in the prescribed proforma was made sometime in 2023, clearly beyond the mandated period of two years as enshrined in Clause 10(a) of the Notification dated March 1, 2016. Thus, the authorities did not consider the application of the petitioner. 4 14. I have heard Mr. Ghosh and Mr. Bajpayee in great details. Notification of March 1, 2016, is clear. Clause 10(a) which has been introduced by way of that Notification to the Notification No. 251-Emp. dated December 3, 2013, reads as follows : “If the family of the deceased or the employee retired on being permanently incapacitated is in need of financial assistance and the same is absolutely necessary to support the family, application for employment is to be submitted within two years from the date of death or retirement on permanent incapacitation. If no application is submitted within the said period it will be presumed that the family does not require any financial assistance.” 15. The revised/ amended provision of the Clause 10(bb) of the very same Notification is set out hereunder : “The concerned authority in the department/office should meet the members of the family of the deceased Govt. servant immediately after his death to advise and assist them in getting appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant should be called in person at the very first stage and should be advised in person about the requirement and formalities to be completed by him. A record of such meeting should be kept with the office of the controlling authority and appointing authority.” 16. It is clear that Clause 10(a) does not relate to an application for compassionate appointment. It relates to a situation where the family of the deceased employee is in need of financial assistance. It merely spells the timelines for application of a family member 5 of the deceased employee for compassionate appointment within a period of two years. However, it is Clause 10(bb) which specifies how this application is to be dealt with. The authorities ought to have acted in terms of Clause 10(bb) and only then proceeded to deal with the application. Not having done so, the hand-written application by the petitioner on a plain paper has to be construed and has indeed been construed by the respondent no. 5 to be a proper application. It was on the basis of this hand-written application made by the petitioner that an enquiry was conducted and the report submitted in respect thereof. It was on the basis of this enquiry report that the respondent no. 5 proceeded to give his recommendation for the appointment of the petitioner. It was again on the basis of this written application that the prayer for employment on compassionate ground was forwarded by the respondent no. 5 to the respondent no. 2. The application was made in June, 2020, and the recommendation made in February, 2024. It was only in 2025 that this application was rejected five years after the application had been made. In this period of five years, the petitioner was never informed nor given the impression nor any advice which ought to have been done in terms of Clause 10(bb), to make a proper application in the prescribed proforma. The hand-written application of 6 the petitioner was accepted and was indeed acted upon by the authorities. 17. Thus, to hold that the petitioner is ineligible merely because the hand-written application is not in conformity with the prescribed proforma and hence the application in the prescribed proforma was made after a period of two years and ten months will result in complete denial of justice to the petitioner. 18. The petitioner was given an impression that his application for compassionate appointment written by him on a plain paper had been duly considered. Since it was considered, an enquiry was undertaken by the concerned authorities and a report was also filed by such three Member Enquiry Committee on the basis of the hand-written application made by the petitioner. On the basis of such enquiry report, the respondent no. 5 proceeded to give his recommendation and forward the same to the respondent no. 2. It was never intimated to the petitioner that his application was rejected as it was a hand-written application and not in the prescribed proforma. 19. The law on the subject is clear and unequivocal as laid down in Mrinal Kanti Das (Supra) to which I have already adverted. 20. In view of the aforestated, the rejection of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the ground of such application, not being made 7 within the prescribed timelines is completely unjustified and cannot be sustained. 21. The concerned authority did not take into account the recommendation made by the respondent no. 5 and the enquiry conducted by a three Member Enquiry Committee. There is no discussion in the impugned orders as to why the enquiry was conducted or recommendation given on the basis of hand-written application. Clearly the hand-written application had been considered and processed as a valid and acceptable mode of apply for compassionate appointment. 22. In view thereof, order of rejection dated February 4, 2025 and order of review dated July 8, 2026 are set aside. 23. Respondent no. 2 is directed to revisit the issue without insisting on the timelines as hand-written application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment had been made within the prescribed time. 24. The respondent no. 2 will revisit the issue and complete the entire process within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 25. The resultant speaking and reasoned order should be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 8 26. In view of the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 27. There will be no order as to costs. 28. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)