S/L 15 01.09.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N W.P.S.T. 158 of 2024 Pathik Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Md. Harun-All-Rashid, Mr. Md. Mojnu Sk, Mr. Sk. Mustak ali … for the Petitioner. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/applicant. 2. There is none to represent the State. 3. The applicant is brother of the Government employee who died in harness. The brother died on 17.06.2011 in a road accident. The petitioner claimed benefit of compassionate appointment. The petitioner‟s claim was supported by an affidavit given by the wife of the deceased as well as his mother expressing No Objection to grant of compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner/applicant. The petitioner‟s claim was placed for consideration before the three men committee which as per rule is required to consider an eligibility of claimant for the purposes of compassionate appointment. Since final decision was not being taken, petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short „Tribunal‟) by filing O.A. No. 1018 of 2017. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application without passing any orders in respect of the petitioner‟s claim. The order dated 16.05.2024 is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 2 4. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner was the only male member of the deceased employee‟s family. The mother and wife had given a No Objection in his favour since he was managing the affairs of the family and looking after the family as guardian male. Under the circumstances, to ensure sustenance of the family by grant of compassionate appointment admissible under the notification no. 251-Emp dated 03.12.2013, the Tribunal should have directed for consideration of the petitioner‟s claim. 5. In support of his submissions he has relied upon decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed –Vs.- State of Bihar and Others reported in (2016) 12 SCC 342. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, perused the record and the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed (supra), relied upon. 7. The notification no. 251-Emp under which benefit of compassionate appointment is sought contemplates grant of compassionate appointment to dependent family member. The expression “dependent family member” defined in Clause 3 of the notification which includes “spouse, son, unmarried daughter and married daughter” subject to certain terms and conditions specified therein. Brother and sister are also considered to be dependent family member under the 3 definition clause, but subject to the fact that the Government employee who died in harness was unmarried. 8. In the present case, there is no dispute/issue as regards the marital status of the Government employee. It is an admitted position that the deceased employee was married. The petitioner (brother of the deceased Government employee), therefore, was not eligible under the notification no. 251-Emp, to be considered as a dependent family member for the purposes of grant of compassionate appointment. 9. Insofar as submission relying upon decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed (supra) is concerned, we find that in the case before the Hon‟ble Apex Court the brother was already appointed when the Hon‟ble Apex Court was delivering the judgment. The judgment further takes note of the fact that the Government employee in that case was a Constable who was killed while on security duty. It was a case of death in action. 10. The judgment further takes notice of the facts that the wife of the Government employee was illiterate and also that the Government employee had left behind four minor children. The Hon‟ble Apex Court took notice of the fact that there was no one in the family to support the widow and the minor children. It is under such circumstance that the widow‟s application was favourably considered by the authorities for 4 appointment of the appellant (brother of the deceased employee) therein. 11. In the present case, there is no averment in the Original Application or affidavits of No Objection filed by the mother or wife of the deceased employee that the wife was illiterate or otherwise ineligible for the appointment on compassionate ground. Clause 3 of 251-Emp enlists the spouse as the first in the list of dependent family members for the purposes of grant of compassionate appointment. 12. Based on facts emanating from the Original Application there is stark variance in the claim of the present writ petitioner, from the claim which fell for consideration before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed (supra). In the present case there is no death in action, there is no issue of an illiterate spouse or such compelling circumstances which the Hon‟ble Apex Court took into consideration while passing the judgment in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed (supra). 13. Another aspect arising for consideration before the Hon‟ble Apex Court was that the State had accepted the claim of the brother therein for grant of compassionate appointment, which was sought to be unsettled, 15 years after the grant of the compassionate appointment. 14. The law is well settled that compassionate appointment is granted to sustain a family left in penury on account of sudden loss of the bread earner. The appointment is granted in exception to the general rule of recruitment 5 and, therefore, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in the case of The State of West Bengal –Vs.- Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712, that such benefit can be availed/granted strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the scheme under which the benefit is sought. 15. In the present case the scheme does not permit grant of such benefit to the petitioner/brother of the deceased Government employee, who was a married Government employee. The petitioner did not make out any enforceable claim for grant of compassionate appointment. 16. The Tribunal, therefore, in our opinion, rightly refused to pass any direction for his consideration. The Tribunal‟s order, in our opinion, does not require any interference in exercise of extra ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction. 17. The writ petition is devoid of merit and dismissed. 18. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)