11.09.2026 Court No.13 Item No. 6 pk MAT 374 of 2020 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2021 I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2021 Rachaita Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Mr. Suprabhat Bhattacharya, Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Mr. Chandra Prakash, Ms. Monalisha Maity … For the Appellant. Ms. Aishwariya Rajyasree. Ms. Debasmita Ganguly … For the State. 1. The appeal is directed against an order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Single Bench of this Court. The Single Bench has found that the appellant has suppressed the fact that her father was receiving two pensions. The first pension is on account of his own service and the second pension is on account of the death of his wife i.e. the mother of the appellant/writ petitioner 2. The appellant/writ petitioner initially had filed WP 8256(W) of 2019 which was disposed of by an order dated 24.04.2019. By the said order the petitioner was directed to be enlisted in the died-in-harness category. 3. The second writ petition being WP No. 20405 (W) of 2019 was filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. The prayer of the writ petitioner in the second writ petition 2 was for a direction upon the respondents to absorb her in any Group ‘C’ post in secondary or higher secondary school in the district of Uttar Dinajpur on compassionate ground on account of her deceased mother. 4. The writ petition could not have been entertained since the respondents may have already empanelled the petitioner and she has to await her turn. 5. The Single Bench, however, found that the writ petitioner/appellant has suppressed material facts that her family was receiving two pensions from the State. It is this that has prompted the Single Bench to dismiss the writ petition and direct the petitioner to await her turn as per the panel in which she was directed to be empanelled in the order dated 24.04.2019(supra). 6. It now transpires from the submissions of the counsels for the parties that the petitioner has married and is well settled. Her financial status must therefore has changed substantially. There is no evidence before this Court as to who is receiving family pension on account of her deceased mother since after her father remarried. 7. This Court’s mind is not free from doubt that the petitioner is guilty of further suppression of material facts as regards the current financial status. In the light of family pension payable on account of her mother’s 3 service and the marriage of the petitioner, she cannot claim the benefit of compassionate employment. 8. It is now well settled that compassionate employment is not a regular source of employment. It is aimed that preventing the family of a deceased employee from falling into penury and starvation. By no stage of imagination can it be held that the petitioner, satisfied with the aforesaid requirement. 9. The order of the Single Bench even otherwise therefore does not call for interference. 10. Accordingly, MAT 374 of 2020 fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently all pending applications are also dismissed. 11. This Court, however, is not inclined to impose costs. 12. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)