24.08.2026 Ct. No. 17 Sl. No. 12 RANJAN FMA 1087 of 2019 BIDHAN MONDAL VS. PASCHIM BANGA GRAMIN BANK AND ORS. Md. Salahuddin Md. Ahsanuzzaman Md. Raziuddin .......for the appellant Mr. Baidurya Ghosal Mr. Sikat Mukherjee .......for the respondent Bank 1. This appeal is against an order dated 04.06.2018 passed in WP No. 3412(W) of 2017. 2. Briefly, the father of the petitioner being the respondent no. 1, was an employee of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank and died in harness on 16.04.2014. Upon his death, the petitioner sought for an appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. Admittedly, no formal application was made for compassionate appointment, perhaps due to the reason that the respondent bank never followed any policy for compassionate appointment. Regardless, the petitioner was appointed as a casual employee on 28.05.2014. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was terminated after serving as a casual worker for three years without any proper reason. The petitioner now seeks directions on the respondent bank to give 2 the petitioner a permanent appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of his father. 5. By the impugned order, the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the bank never followed a policy for compassionate appointment. Notwithstanding this fact, the petitioner was permitted to work as a casual employee in order to help the petitioner to tide over his immediate financial crisis. In such circumstances, the petitioner can have no vested right to claim permanent employment. 6. It is now well settled that an appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. In this case, there was no compassionate appointment. Nevertheless, the petitioner had been engaged as a casual employee. There is no enforceable legal right which the petitioner has been able to demonstrate warranting employment as a permanent employee. 7. In this background, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. There has been no contravention of any law nor perversity warranting any interference with the impugned order. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court is not liable to be interfered with. 8. For the above reasons, FMA 1087 of 2019 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.] [CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.]