1 WPA 1568 of 2026 A.Roy, J. Form J(2) JPD Sl.No. 42 Moumita In the High Court at Calcutta In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy WPA 1568 OF 2026 Rahul Tamang Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Ms. Suman Sehanabis, Adv. Mr. Salok Sah, Adv. Ms. Anwesha Chakroborty, Adv. For the State :Mr. Jagriti Mishra, Ld. AAAG. Ms. Mrinmayee Das, Adv. Heard on : August 12, 2026. Judgment on : August 12, 2026. [In Court] Aniruddha Roy, J. : 1. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record. 2. Ms. Suman Sehanabis, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner. 3. Mr. Jagriti Mishra, learned AAAG, learned appears for the State. 2 WPA 1568 of 2026 A.Roy, J. 4. The petitioner claims that, his father was a Government employee who died on December 24, 2003. The petitioner has claimed a compassionate appointment and submitted a representation dated December 19, 2024 after 21 years of the death annexure p-3 at page 19 to the writ petition. The representation has been considered by the authority and rejected by a communication dated January 24, 2025 annexure p-4 at page 20 to the writ petition. The observation of the authority rejecting the claim of the petitioner is quoted below: ‘This is to information you that the deceased Govt. employee Const/508 Man Bahadur Tamang of Janpaiguri District Police, your father has been expired on 24.12.2003. At that time you were only five years old. You are not eligible to get a job under exempted category as per Labour Department, West Bengal Notification No. 251-Emp dated 03.12.2013 & 26-EMP dated 01.03.2016. Hence, your prayer is considered and rejected.’ 5. The governing principle as settled by law, for compassionate appointment is that, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right. It is a benevolent policy of the state, unless the State policy permits, there shall be no compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment is to support the imminent an emergent crisis occurred in a family due to untimely death of the sole earning member of the family, so that, the family of the deceased can survive. From the rejection communication it appears 3 WPA 1568 of 2026 A.Roy, J. that, the petitioner is found not to be eligible to receive compassionate appointment under the relevant State policy. Inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner died in 2003 when the petitioner claimed to be minor but the application had been submitted after 21 years in 2024, which ex facie shows that, even the petitioner had become major, the application was submitted much thereafter. The family of the deceased could survive for 21 years in the meanwhile. 6. In the view of the forgoing reasons and discussions the rejection for compassionate appointment of the petitioner is found to be just and lawful and is not interfered with. 7. Resultantly, this writ petition WPA 1568 of 2026 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs. 8. Parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Aniruddha Roy, J.)