08.09.2026 24 sdas WPA 20459 of 2026 Lakshman Dome Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Aneek Pandit Mr. Debapriya Ghosh ….. for the petitioner Mr. D. N. Roy, learned G.P. Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee Mr. Guddu Singh ….. for the State 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioner is the son of a deceased employee, who had applied for appointment on compassionate ground. This application of the petitioner had been rejected on December 5, 2024. The ground for rejection was that the application of the petitioner, relatable to his father, who died on September 28, 2020, was made almost after lapse of four years and thus, could not be entertained. It is this order of December 14, 2024 which has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. The surrounding facts leading to this rejection are of some relevance in this matter. The petitioner’s father was a road mozdur attached to the Birbhum Division under West Bengal Circle-I. On his death his wife had nominated the younger son, sometime in 2 December 2020, for compassionate appointment. This application of the mother for appointment of her younger son made in December, 2020 was kept pending by the authorities for no ostensible reason. In fact, the enquiry report seems to suggest that the younger son was indeed qualified for appointment. Even as late as July, 2024, the enquiry report was made and no steps were taken by the authorities to grant the appointment to the younger son. Unfortunately, the younger son also expired some time in 2023. It was only after the death of the original nominee, the younger son, the petitioner, as the elder son of the deceased employee, offered his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground. Had the candidature of the petitioner been rejected on any ground, other than timelines, the same could still be sustained. The refusal to consider the petitioner’s candidature, simply based on the timelines is unjust and clearly unfair. 4. Unjust and unfair both since the application for compassionate appointment of the younger son made in 2020 was kept pending for almost four years as in 2024 the enquiry report was filed. During the pendency of such process, the younger son expired sometime in September 2023. It was only after the death of the younger son that the rights of the petitioner fructified to apply for compassionate 3 appointment on the death of his father. It is true that the application of the petitioner is relatable to the death of the father in 2020, the timelines between December 2020 till 2024 will have to be considered in the light of the pending application of the younger son made in December, 2020 and not disposed of even at the time of his death in September, 2023. This period between December, 2020 and September, 2023 cannot be construed as a timeline applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner could not have applied prior to September, 15, 2023. 5. The authorities cannot be permitted to act with such apathy in a case of compassionate appointment. The entire purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to ensure that a family of a deceased employee survives with dignity. This purpose is completely obliterated by the authorities, keeping an application for compassionate appointment pending for a period in excess of 3½ years. The apathy is such that during the pendency of the application of the younger son, he expired. It may be a travesty of the circumstances and situation but it also cannot be denied that the authorities have contributed to such travesty by their abject apathy to the situation. 6. In the circumstances as aforestated, the application of the petitioner has to be considered afresh without insisting on the timelines. 4 7. In view of the aforestated, the order of December 15, 2024, is set aside. 8. The authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh within a period of six months from date. 9. If found otherwise eligible, the petitioner will be granted appointment within a period of thirty days from the date of the enquiry report. 10. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)