IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side 28.08.2026 D/L 02 Court No. 4 (Naba) W.P.S.T. 170 of 2026 Rimil Hembram Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Lalratan Mandal, Mr. Dilip Kumar Sadhu ...for the Petitioner Mr. D.N. Ray, ld. G.P., Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee, Mr. Milind M. Ghosh ...for the State 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The writ petitioner’s father died-in-harness on 12.03.2013. The writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Food & Supplies Department by a communication dated 20.07.2022. The reason assigned is that the application was delayed. 3. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his claim in the year 2018. The Three Man Committee found the petitioner’s family/dependants of the 2 deceased employee, to be in a state of penury, and therefore, entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment. Under the circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the impugned order is unsustainable. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is apparent from the Original Application that the petitioner’s date of birth was 22.01.2000. On the date of demise of his father, he was, therefore, aged approximately 13 years and 02 months. He was 05 years below the minimum age criteria for consideration/grant of benefit of compassionate appointment. The petitioner made an application as per his own claim in the O.A., only after he attained the age of majority, i.e. about 05 years after the demise of his father. The Scheme under which the benefit is claimed, provided a maximum period of 02 years for making such an application. The same also contemplated that intended beneficiary to be qualifying the minimum age criteria (18 years). 5. In view of the above noted timeline, where the petitioner was 13 years of age at the time of demise of his father and application having made 05 years thereafter, it is apparent that the petitioner did not possess the requisite eligibility 3 and his belated application was beyond the scope of the Scheme. 6. The law by now is well settled that the benefit of a Scheme for compassionate appointment can be extended only in accordance with the terms and conditions contained therein. 7. In view of the above undisputed facts, the petitioner did not qualify under the Scheme. The authorities, therefore, have rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim. 8. The fact that the Three Man Committee found the petitioner eligible on financial status, ipso facto cannot confer eligibility on the petitioner. He was required to possess all the requisite qualifications and comply with the conditions stipulated in the Scheme, which he did not comply with. 9. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (‘S.A.T.’ for short), therefore, in our opinion rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim by its order dated 19.06.2025 passed in O.A. No. 10 of 2025. 10. The order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the S.A.T. in O.A. No.10 of 2025, in our opinion does not require any interference. 11. The Writ Petition is dismissed. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 4 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)