Item No.2 21.08.2026 Court. No. 12 GB FMA 200 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Amartya Chakraborty Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Amartya Chakraborty … the Appellant (in-person). Ms. Tanusree Ghosh … for the State. 1. The appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated March 21, 2025, passed in Review No.13 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025 arising out of WPA No.19123 of 2023. By the order impugned, the learned Judge rejected the review application, inter alia, holding that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8842-8855 of 2022, i.e., the State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others negated any right to compassionate appointment of the dependant of an employee of a statutory or local body. 2. Relying on the circular no.301-EMP, His Lordship held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. The relevant circular which was relied upon by His Lordship, is quoted below:- “(iii) If Circular Nos.301-EMP, 302-EMP. are to be read so as to cover all 2 establishments of the Act of 1999, then 97- EMP. dated 6th June, 2005, should provide for appointment in the establishment covered by the Act of 1999 concerned. It does not do so. Therefore, Circular Nos.301- EMP, 302-EMP and 303-EMP. cannot be held to be applicable to local authorities.” 3. The father of the appellant died-in-harness while he was in employment of Baranagar municipality, on May 5, 2013. The appellant applied in the prescribed form on May 29, 2013. The matter was forwarded to the Director of Local Bodies by the municipality in time. 4. It is an admitted position that, the delay in disposal occurred as the Director of Local Bodies did not respond to such application for a considerable period. Thereafter, when the appellant’s repeated requests and reminders went in vain, WPA 18347 of 2019 was filed for necessary directions upon the authorities. The said writ petition was disposed of on May 1, 2023, inter alia, directing the concerned respondent to inform the appellant as to the fate of his prayer for compassionate appointment, by passing a reasoned order. 5. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal by an order dated June 8, 2023, rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the decision of the 3 Hon’ble Apex Court in Debabrata Tiwari (supra) would be squarely applicable. According to the authority, the memo of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal No.251-EMP dated December 3, 2013, which regulated the appointment on compassionate ground only applied to dependents of government employees and the said memorandum had not been extended to local bodies. On such ground alone, the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, who appears in-person submits that the authority had wrongly applied the 251- EMP in his case, as the date of death of the father was May 5, 2013 and the application was filed on May 29, 2013. The memorandum which would be applicable for compassionate appointment in this case was 30-EMP dated April 2, 2008, by which the position prevailing prior to 06.06.2005 was restored, meaning thereby, the notification no.301- EMP/IM-10/2000 dated August 21, 2002 would be applicable in this case. The said memorandum of 2002 brought within its purview the dependants of employees who died-in-harness while serving in any undertaking, statutory body, government companies or local authorities. Under such circumstances, the dependants of the deceased employee of Baranagar municipality, squarely fell 4 within the ambit of the 2002 memorandum. The 2002 memorandum is the relevant scheme that was followed by the local bodies and municipality. 7. We had asked the learned Additional Government Pleader to apprise us of the situation, that is, whether dependants of employees who served under municipalities had been granted compassionate appointment or not. The Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal, has filed a report in the form of instructions to the learned Government Pleader. The same is taken on record. 8. It appears that ever after 2008, appointment on compassionate ground had been granted to several dependants of deceased employees in various urban local bodies. Such approvals were granted on the basis of the proposal received from the respective urban local bodies in parity with the available sanctioned vacant posts. 9. Although, it is contended that after the 2013 circular, which superseded all previous circulars, the case of the appellant cannot be considered for compassionate appointment, we are of the view that the validity of the claim of the appellant should be decided on the basis of his date of application and the scheme that was prevailing at the time when the application was filed. 251-EMP came into force on December 3, 2013. Whereas, the 5 appellant’s father died on May 5, 2013 and the application was filed on May 29, 2013. The date when the authorities woke up from their slumber upon a jolt being given by the High Court, cannot be the relevant date for consideration of the prayer for compassionate appointment in this case. The delay has been caused by the authorities and is not attributable to the appellant. The municipality forwarded the case to the DLB sometime in 2016 and thereafter in 2023, the matter was decided by the authority pursuant to a direction by the High Court. The rejection of the prayer, in our view, was only on the ground that the circular of 2013 which was the latest policy of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal relating to compassionate appointment, did not apply to the dependants of employees who died-in-harness while serving under municipalities and other local bodies. 10. We have already given our reasons as to why we are of the opinion that the date of the application should be the relevant date in this case, for consideration of the application of the appellant and, as such, we are of the view that the 2008 circular which restored the provision of 2002 circular will be applicable, meaning thereby, prayer for compassionate appointment should have been 6 treated on the basis of the said memoranda. The rejection order and the order of the learned Single Judge are set aside. 11. The ordinary rule of litigation is that right to relief should be decided by reference to the date on which the litigant approached the court. However, it would not be prudent or wise to reject a claim only because of the time taken by courts to decide the suit before it. Lapse of time for denying compassionate appointment may be a relevant factor if the claim is lodged belatedly. 12. In this case, the claim was made within 24 days from the date of death of the father. This urgency in the application made by the appellant clearly indicates that the family was in need of immediate financial assistance, otherwise he would not have approached the authority within the mourning period. The father died on May 5, 2013. The application was made on May 29, 2013. The authorities sat over the matter. The appellant had to approach the writ court and was diligently pursuing his claim prior thereto. Thus, irrespective of how old the case may be, the appellant's right to compassionate appointment cannot be foreclosed on the ground of delay and passage of time. There cannot be a straitjacket formula applicable uniformly to all cases of employees dying in 7 harness, which would warrant appointment on compassionate grounds. Each case has to be decided on its peculiar features and is required to be dealt with bearing in mind the financial condition of the family. 13. Compassionate appointment is always given on the basis of a scheme or a policy of the employer of the deceased. The policies frame parameters which are required to be satisfied by the applicant in order to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thus, we hold that if the appellant is found to be eligible under the 2002 scheme/2002 memorandum, he should be considered under the said scheme and appointment must be given in the event he satisfies the requirements under the said scheme. 14. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment within 24 days from the date of death. The delay on the part of the authorities resulting in change of policy cannot be a ground for rejection of the case. If we hold that such change of policy was a valid ground for rejection of the case for compassionate appointment, we will be encouraging intentional delays on the part of the employer or the respondents leading to change of policy, thereby taking away a right which had accrued at the time of death of the father. 8 15. In this case, the date of consideration cannot be the relevant date, but the date of application should be the relevant date, in view of the procedural delay that was caused by the authorities, starting from the Baranagar Municipality to the Director of Local Bodies, in keeping the application pending for more than 10 years. 16. The Director of Local Bodies shall take immediate steps for considering the case for appointment of the appellant under the died-in-harness category according to his eligibility, by applying the 2002 memorandum. We also take judicial notice of the fact that various appointments had been given after 2008 to dependants of employees who served in the local bodies. As such, we do not understand why the same treatment should not be given to the appellant. Similarly situated persons are entitled to similar reliefs and similar treatment. Any departure therefrom is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellant shall be appointed as directed by us in any suitable post in a suitable organization, under the said category within a period of six weeks from date of communication of this order if he satisfies the eligibility criteria under the 2002 circular. Necessary approval for such appointment shall be 9 given by all the authorities as per the requirement of law and service rules, in the event the appellant is eligible for appointment. 17. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 18. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)