20 17.08. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab WPA 1669 of 2025 Suparna Sarkar Vs. Paschim Banga Gramin Bank and others. --------------- Mr. Indranath Mitra. … for the petitioner. Mr. Baidurya Ghosal, Mr. Saikat Mukherjee. … for the respondent no. 1. 1. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that her application for compassionate appointment on the death of her father, an employee of the respondent no. 1, has been rejected by the concerned authority. 3. The father of the petitioner was employed in the respondent no. 1 and served there till he expired on April 16, 2020. 4. The petitioner’s mother has thereafter made an application on December 7, 2020, which did not get any response, prompting the petitioner’s mother to make a second application on December 24, 2020. Further application was also made through the proper channel on September 28, 2022. It is this application of September 28, 2022, which was rejected by the authorities by its order of March 20, 2023, which has been assailed in this writ petition. 5. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following issues: 2 (a) The application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased employee, the petitioner’s father, on the date of consideration of the application, had an income, which was more than 60% of the last drawn salary of the employee, (b) There is no definition of the word “indigent” as specified in the Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, which came into effect In April 2019. Thus, this arbitrary benchmark parameter of 60% could not have been considered as a cut-off and hence, a ground for rejection of the petitioner’s application. (c) Taking into consideration the provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment to arrive at the total available monthly income of the family of the deceased is impermissible since all such income and/or accrued benefits of the deceased employee are payable to him and do not reflect any compassion or sympathy on behalf of the Bank. He relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, reported in 2000 (6) SCC 493, to buttress the point that the consideration of the terminal benefits cannot be 3 a ground for rejection of a prayer for a compassionate appointment. 6. Mr. Ghosal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1, makes the following submissions: (a) While it is true that the word “indigent” as appearing in the Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground of April 18, 2019 does not have a specific definition insofar as predecessor in interest of the respondent no. 1, Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, is concerned, it cannot be denied that the 2021 Scheme for a similar bank, Bangiya Gramin Bank, had a specific definition for “indigent”, which meant any family of a deceased employee earning less than 60% of the last drawn salary of such employee. It is taking support and leverage from the definition therein, that the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the deceased employee’s family was indeed earning a sum greater than 60% of his last drawn salary. (b) The terminal benefits, though earlier were not a part of calculation of the income of the family of the deceased employee has now been specifically included pursuant to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India over a 4 period of time, lastly in the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sashi Kumar, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653. (c) He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Hon’ble Court of a Coordinate Bench in Subhajit Bayen vs. Raj Kishore Sahoo in WPCRC 112 of 2022, where it has been reiterated on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the terminal benefits are to be taken into consideration while considering a case for compassionate appointment. (d) He has also relied on an extract of the Rules for compassionate appointment policy enshrined under Chapter 7 of the West Bengal Gramin Bank, specifically in Rule 5.1 thereof. The Rule specifies that 60% of the last drawn gross salary would be an “indice” to ascertain and/or calculate the monthly income of the family of the deceased. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and considered the documents on record as well as the decisions relied upon by them. 8. Before delving into adjudication of this matter, a rather important and decisive fact has to be noted. 9. There were three major banks catering to the needs of the agriculturists in the State of West Bengal. These 5 three banks were the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank and Uttar Banga Khetriya Gramin Bank. 10. These three banks were amalgamated on May 1, 2025 by an appropriate notification/circular. The respondent no. 1 presently is the West Bengal Gramin Bank, the resultant entity upon amalgamation of the three banks. Prior thereto, it was the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, which was the respondent no. 1 herein. Though, Paschim Banga Gramin Bank had a Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, which was formulated on April 18, 2019, the word “indigent” had not been specifically defined. 11. On the other hand, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, had a Scheme, which was revised in 2021, thereby providing a specific definition of the word “indigent”. It was in this revised Scheme that the benchmark parameter of 60% of the last drawn salary of the deceased employee was made an “indice” to ascertain the eligibility of the family to get compassionate appointment. 12. The Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, in which the deceased employee in this case was employed, used this “indice” as the benchmark parameter of 60% of the last drawn pay of the said employee. On the basis of this, the application of the petitioner was rejected. 6 13. Mr. Mitra has asserted that on the date of death of the employee, there was no such “indice” available to the authorities on the basis whereof such rejection could have been made. 14. It is true that on the date of death of the employee i.e. April 16, 2020, there was no such “indice”. However, on the date of making the application sometime in September 2022, since the earlier applications had not been made through the proper channel, the “indice” was readily available to the authority. Though, “indice” was that of the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank and not of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank. 15. Since there was availability of this benchmark parameter in the Gramin Bank of one of the three, similarly situated banks, all the banks used the same “indice” to ascertain the eligibility of an intending person for compassionate appointment. This has been done universally without any discrimination. 16. In fact, after amalgamation of the three banks presently as the West Bengal Gramin Bank, the 2025 notification and/or policy for compassionate appointment has made it abundantly clear that the “indice” would remain 60% of the last drawn salary. Had there been a change in this “indice” in the 2025 policy, the petitioner may have alleged discretion as she could have claimed better right available to her 7 on the date that her application was considered. There is no such allegation. 17. The issue/core question, which falls for determination is “whether having accepted the terminal benefits of the deceased employee, the dependent family members could have applied for compassionate appointment?”. It was in those circumstances and while answering such issue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that receipt of terminal benefits cannot be a ground to decline compassionate appointment. In fact, this has now been clarified that consideration of terminal benefits to ascertain the monthly income of the family of the deceased employee is permissible, in the case of Shashi Kumar (Supra). The authorities cannot be faulted for taking into account the terminal benefits and investments including the family pension paid by the bank. The cumulative effect of this will have to be considered as part and parcel of the family income, which is being drawn by the family of the deceased employee. 18. The decision of Subhajit Bayen (supra) was rendered under similar facts of this case where the rejection for compassionate appointment had occurred prior to coming into force of the regulations. Even in those circumstances, it was held, upon considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that 8 the terminal benefits have to be taken into account to ascertain the status of the family of the deceased employee regarding its “indigency”. 19. It is not in dispute that the compassionate appointment is not a regular source of appointment but indeed an exception thereto. The exception cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In any event, the eligibility criteria fixed by the authorities or taken into account by the authorities for all such candidates, similarly situated to the petitioner, clearly indicate that the petitioner has not suffered any discrimination. The income of the deceased employee’s family is such that it does not reflect that the family members are in any penury or destitution, on account whereof, the petitioner’s candidature for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 20. The rejection on the basis of 60% of the last drawn salary was not applied discriminatorily to the petitioner’s case, in violation of any order or Rule or Scheme. Neither was such benchmark applied to the petitioner to the exclusion or discrimination of other similarly situated candidates. The application was made on the basis of revised guidelines of the Bangiya Vikash Gramin Bank, which was in force on the date the application by the petitioner through proper channel was made on September 28, 2022. The parameter set by one of the similarly situated 9 banks, which later on merged with the bank in question has been used as a benchmark. This has been used for all such applications. That being the case, the decision of the bank rejecting the candidature/application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the family of the deceased employee, including the petitioner, was not in penury or destitution. 21. In view of the afore-stated findings, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities on March 20, 2023. 22. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 23. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)