08.09.2026 23 sdas WPA 20146 of 2026 Shaswati Naskar Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy Mr. Lakshminath Bhattacharya ….. for the petitioner Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anujit Mukherjee ….. for the State 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioner is the daughter of a former employee who was employed as an Anganwadi worker. 3. The said employee, mother of the petitioner, expired on October 31, 2023, while in-harness. 4. This prompted the petitioner to make an application for compassionate appointment on the “died-in-harness” category. This application made by the petitioner was rejected on March 12, 2025, on the ground that the petitioner was over-aged at the time and was, thus, not entitled to be considered as a fit case for appointment on compassionate ground in the “died-in-harness” category. It is this rejection of March 12, 2025, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition. Post facto, the petitioner had 2 made a representation on April 23, 2025 seeking, inter alia, condonation of her age so that she could be considered for compassionate appointment. 5. Mr. Saha Roy, learned senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has made the following submissions: (a) The original Memorandum applicable to cases of compassionate appointment in the “died-in- harness” category of 2006 was amended by the Memorandum bearing No. 3487-SW/3S-48/14 dated October 15, 2014; (b) In this amended Memorandum, the original Memorandum of 2006 bearing no. 288-SW dated January 25, 2006 has been only modified and/or amended, though this Memorandum of 2006 remains applicable; (c) The refusal by the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner is based on the Memorandum No. 5877-SW/O/3S-225/05 dated October 10, 2023, whereby age of the interested incumbents has now been limited between 18 to 35 years; (d) This Memorandum of October 10, 2023 is not applicable to the petitioner. This, since the Memorandum of 2014 relates to appointment of the persons on compassionate appointment while that of 2023 refers to the engagement of the persons on compassionate ground. Clearly the 3 Memorandum of 2023 does not, in any manner, alter or modify or amend the Memorandum of 2014. Thus, the age for all interested incumbents for appointment on compassionate ground remains 18 to 45 years and does not suffer the amendment made in 2023 from 18 to 35 years; (e) Thus, the rejection of the petitioner’s application on March 12, 2025 is clearly unfounded and based on a wrong interpretation of the Memorandum of October, 2023. 6. Mr. Chaturvedi, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, has made the following submissions to defend the order of rejection on March 12, 2025: (a) The Memorandum of 2006 has been altered by that of 2014, which was the guiding Memorandum for all persons applying for compassionate appointment in the “died-in-harness” category. It is true that the said Memorandum specified the age of such persons to be within the bracket of 18 to 45 years; (b) However, the Memorandum of 2023, irrespective of the words used, has specifically modified the amendment caused by the Memorandum of 2014. The Memorandum of 2014 has been specifically considered and amended in 2023, especially the 4 age which has now been reduced from 18 to 45 years to 18 to 35 years; (c) In view of the aforestated Memorandum of 2023, which is the applicable Memorandum for the petitioner, claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected on March 12, 2025, as the petitioner does not fall within the amended age bracket of 18 to 35 years; (d) In addition to the aforestated, the petitioner has herself admitted the fact that she was over-aged on the date of filing her application for appointment on compassionate ground as her representation on April 23, 2025 had been sought for condonation of her age. Thus, there is no challenge to the amendment of 2023 nor is it disputed by the petitioner that she was not bound by the Memorandum of 2023 or alternatively that the same does not apply to the amendment of the Memorandum of 2014. Having accepted this proposition and acted thereupon, in seeking condonation of her age, the petitioner cannot make a volte face at this stage and seek appointment on compassionate ground, not by condoning her age but by pleading that the amendment of 2023 does not apply to the Memorandum of 2014; 5 (e) In view of the aforestated, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained and has been rightly rejected by the order of March 12, 2025; (f) He has relied on a decision of this Court in WPA 11554 of 2024 (Samar Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the decisions and documents on record and relied upon by them. 8. This is a classic case, where the petitioner has become wiser upon contacting her Advocate. 9. The petitioner has understood the Memorandum of 2006 and of 2014 to have a cumulative effect on her application. The Memorandums of 2006 and 2014 lay down certain parameters for appointment on compassionate ground in the “died-in-harness” category. These parameters are primarily educational qualifications and the age bracket which have been provided therein. 10. The Memorandum of 2006 and that of 2014 are absolutely identical in so far as the age bracket is concerned. The only amendment made to the 2006 Memorandum by that of 2014 relates to the educational qualification. The age bracket in both the Memorandums remain the same from 18 to 45 years. 11. It is only the Memorandum of 2023 which limits this age bracket from 18 to 35 years. Needless to say 6 that the compassionate appointment is a departure from the established procedures of recruitment which are in line with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A normal recruitment proceeds to strain and obtain the best candidates on the basis of merit for recruitment to a particular post. Compassionate appointment is a departure from this established procedure. This departure has been made to ensure that the family of a deceased employee is not left in penury. Sudden death of the employee should not throw the family into financial doldrums where they cannot lead their day-to-day life with minimum dignity. 12. This departure over a period of time has now been levelled with some parameters as well. A compassionate appointment cannot be a matter of right. It is qualified by institutions in their own policies and the Government of West Bengal has made two benchmark parameters for compassionate appointment. The first of such benchmark parameter relates to educational qualification of the person applying for such compassionate appointment. The second is the age factor. 13. The amendment made in 2023 is clear and unequivocal and relates to the Memorandum of October 15, 2014. The mere use of the word “engagement” as opposed to “appointment”, cannot be 7 deemed to clothe a person such as the petitioner with an additional right. 14. Unless there is a specific provision made in the Memorandum or Rules or applicable Notifications, an administrative authority cannot travel beyond such applicable provisions to condone or relax the age limit which has been provided. All persons applying under this category for compassionate appointment are being treated in a similar manner and there is no reason nor has any such reason been disclosed as to why the petitioner should be treated differently. 15. The petitioner has also understood this issue and after the order of March 12, 2025 rejecting her application was made, the petitioner made a representation requesting the authorities to condone her age as she was over-aged by about five months and few days. Thus, the petitioner has conceded to the fact that she is bound by the Memorandum of 2014 as amended by that of 2023. There is no challenge to the fact that the Memorandum of 2023 is applicable to the petitioner. There is also no challenge to the fact that the petitioner, as an applicant on compassionate appointment, will be “appointed” and not “engaged”. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are quite contrary to the steps taken by the petitioner in admitting to the fact that the Memorandum of 2006 as amended in 8 2014 which has been further amended in 2023, applies to her in its entirety. 16. The decision relied upon by Mr. Chaturvedi, is also clear and unequivocal that unless there is a specific provision in the applicable Rules, the question of condoning the age in a case for compassionate appointment does not arise. 17. I respectfully agree with such dictum. The petitioner, as an applicant for compassionate appointment in “died-in-harness” category, is clearly bound by the Memorandum of 2014 as amended in 2023. 18. In view of the aforestated discussions and findings, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 19. There will be no order as to costs. 20. After the judgment has been passed, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, prays that dismissal of the writ petition will not be an impediment for the authorities to consider the issue of condonation of the petitioner’s age. 21. The authorities are at liberty to react to the representation made by the petitioner on April 23, 2025, if they so desire. 9 22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)