od 5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE CORAM: HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE PARTHA PRATIM ROY APOT/12/2026 IN WPO/708/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 JOY DAS VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS HEARD ON : 27.08.2026. DELIVERED ON : 27.08.2026. Appearance : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Badrul Karim, Adv. Mr. S. Nag, Adv. Ms. Aritra Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Sajed Hossain, Adv. …for appellant. Mr. Sourav Kumar Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Parashar Baidya, Adv. Mr. M. G. Khaitan, Adv. …for State. Mr. Niladri Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Suman Majumder, Adv. Ms. Deblina Chattaraj, Adv. Ms. Poulomi Chattopadhyay, Adv. …for respondent nos.2 to 6. [Judgment of the Court was delivered by Madhuresh Prasad, J.] 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 2. The sum and substance of the present dispute is a claim for compassionate ground of the writ petitioner, whose father died in harness while working under the West Bengal Transport Corporation on 29th November, 2007. As on the date of demise of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner was aged seven years old. The writ petition was 2 filed for the first time asserting the claim for compassionate appointment in the year 2025. The same was disposed of directing a consideration of the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner’s claim thereafter was considered and rejected by the authorities, namely, the Managing Director of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation by an order communicated by a covering letter dated 19th September 2025. The same was to be put to challenge in the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present intra-court appeal. The learned single Judge after considering the petitioner’s claim did not find the claim to be admissible. 3. We have considered the rival submissions and the records. It appears that the petitioner’s father died while in harness serving in the West Bengal Transport Corporation as a fitter. The petitioner has enclosed copies of the communications dated 15th February, 2011 and 30th January, 2012 to support an assertion that application was made for appointment of the writ petitioner. The two communications enclosed, however, do not manifest an application being made in favour of the writ petitioner, who at the time of demise of his father was only seven years. The application made by his mother does not specify in whose favour the application was made. The communication dated 30th January, 2012 referred to a self-explanatory representation. However, the representation is not annexed. Under the circumstances, there is no material to arrive at a definite conclusion that an application was made in 2011 and 2012 seeking the writ petitioner’s appointment. Be that as it may, beyond the correspondence in 2011 and 2012 there is 3 no material to show that the compassionate appointment either on behalf of the petitioner or his mother was pursued. 4. All of a sudden decades after petitioner’s father died on 29th November, 2007 there is a recommendation from the Minister In- Charge dated 19th February, 2019 for sympathetic consideration of petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was given an appointment on contractual basis on 29th December, 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner started moving the authority for converting his contractual appointment on sympathetic ground to a permanent appointment. This is the factual background in which the claim was raised. 5. The Managing Director of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation disposed of the petitioner’s claim by the reasoned order dated 4th August, 2025, passed in compliance of order dated 22nd May, 2025 passed in WPO/1336/2023. The Managing Director has noted that the petitioner’s father was an employee of West Bengal Transport Corporation and he is not covered by any scheme for compassionate appointment. Since the scheme which earlier existed for compassionate appointment, were all withdrawn, under 151-Emp dated 8th September, 2005. He noted that as per 151-Emp the benefit was confined only to the State Government services and not to the other Corporations. 6. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner, however, has relied upon a Notification dated 30th January, 2011 to submit that the same is the scheme under which the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment. 4 7. The learned single Judge considered the writ petitioner’s claim. Reliance placed on a decision in the case of Upendra Kumar vs. The State of West Bengal (W.P.O. 1240 of 2021) and the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Arindam Choudhury vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2019 SCC OnLine CAL 59 was also taken into consideration by the learned single Judge. 8. The learned advocate however submitted that the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench in Arindam Chowdhury (Supra) has no application to the facts of the present case since the factual matrix leading to passing of the judgment are at variance with the present case. 9. In so far as the decision in the case of Upendra Kumar (Supra), it is submitted that the petitioner’s case is covered by this decision whereby and whereunder the single Bench passed a direction upon the Calcutta Tramways Company to consider the petitioner’s claim for grant of compassionate appointment within three months and in the event they were unable to give a permanent appointment they were required to dispose of the petitioner’s claim by a reasoned order and give the petitioner appointment as a contractual conductor. 10. The learned advocate representing the respondent have opposed the appeal. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. In so far as the case of Upendra Kumar (Supra) is concerned. We find that the order is of a learned single Judge having no binding precedent on this court. However, having observed so, we find that the writ petitioner therein claimed compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in harness on 29th October, 2010. The scheme relied upon by the 5 petitioner came into existence on 13th January, 2011. The scheme contemplates making an application within three months, and clause 2 of the scheme defines an employee to mean a person who is/was a regular and permanent employee, Upendra Kumar’s father died within three months of coming into force of the Notification dated 13th January, 2011. Perhaps, under such circumstances, the authorities considered his claim for grant of compassionate appointment. The case of the writ petitioner stands on a different footing. It is an admitted position that at the time of demise of his father he was only seven years of age. The two communications dated 15th February, 2011 and 30th January, 2012 do not reveal any application made for his compassionate appointment. Even if for the sake of argument we consider that an application was made at a time when he was seven years or ten years, surely it could not have been acted upon in his favour, since he was disqualified for want of minimum age for recruitment. 12. In so far as the decision in the case of Arindam Chowdhury (Supra) is concerned, we are of the opinion that the legal position settled under the judgment is that a claim for compassionate appointment cannot be preserved till such time a person attained majority. Benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be granted if the person/dependent does not come within the eligibility, including minimum age criteria; or the period specified for making an application under the scheme, benefit of which is sought. 13. We find no scope, or reason to differ with this proposition of law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench. The issue whether a person can avail 6 a compassionate appointment or not has recently also been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, this Court has emphasized the concept of immediacy in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment, the object of which is to provide succour to the family of deceased, in penury, on account of sudden loss of bread earner. 14. For the reasons and consideration above, we are of the opinion that the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be enforced in exercise of writ jurisdiction by filing a writ petition 18 years after demise of his father. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the decision of the learned single Judge requiring any inference in the matter. 15. With the above observation, the appeal and the applications both are dismissed. 16. Affidavit of service filed in court today, be taken on record. (MADHURESH PRASAD, J.) I agree (PARTHA PRATIM ROY, J.) pkd.