07.08.2026 15 sdas WPA 18847 of 2026 Lipika Majhi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Panda Mr. Uttam Kumar Roy .….. for the petitioner Mr. D.N. Ray, learned G.P. Mr. Guddu Singh Mr. Sourav Halder ……for the State 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that her application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Petitioner’s mother was working as an approved Peon, a ‘Group-D’ staff in the Hooghly Highway Division –I, under the Public Work (Roads) Directorate, Government of West Bengal. The employee expired sometime in May, 2020, whereupon the petitioner, an unmarried daughter of the said employee, applied on July 27, 2020. 3. This application of the petitioner was a hand- written application which was deposited with the concerned authority. 4. Pursuant to the application, a Three-Member Enquiry-cum-Screening Committee was constituted to look into the application of the petitioner, only in 2 May, 2023. She, thereafter, applied by way of the appropriate proforma sometime in May 25, 2023. The authorities had considered her application and had recommended her appointment. However, the Joint Secretary, PWD, Government of West Bengal, on September 27, 2024, proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner on the ground that the said application had been made beyond the stipulated timelines and hence disabled the petitioner from being considered for compassionate appointment. It is this order of September 27, 2024 which has been assailed in this writ petition along with a subsequent rejection of her renewed request, on November 28, 2024. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made an application for compassionate appointment on the death of her mother. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother was an employee of the concerned department of the Government of West Bengal. The timelines are also fairly indisputable. The mother expired in May, 2020, while the application was made in July, 2020. This application was made by way of a hand-written note, which is not disputed by the authority. In fact, it is on the basis of this hand- written application given by the petitioner that the entire process had been initiated. The Enquiry Committee had been formed in 2023 and a report had 3 also been filed by such Committee. Thus, the timelines relating the application back to 2023 and thereby holding the same to be barred seems completely out of context, as the hand-written application made by the petitioner on July 27, 2020, has not been considered at all. 6. The decision of this Hon’ble Court in WPST No. 36 of 2025 is clear and unequivocal that once an application is made, even on a plain paper, within the time, the authorities are conscious of such request from the dependants of a Government servant, whose family has been left in penury due to the sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the family. It has been held that the authority should immediately respond to an application, even if it is made on a plain paper and cannot be a ground to reject an application for compassionate appointment. This has also been reiterated and upheld in a decision of this Hon’ble Court in WPST 235 of 2025 (Sujay Kumar Biswas vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 7. In view of the aforestated, there is no room for any doubt that the rejection of the petitioner’s application on September 27, 2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 8. The authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner, bereft of the issue of limitation or 4 that the petitioner has not made the application within the stipulated time as provided. 9. The consideration and the resultant order thereof should be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)