Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 1485 of 2026 Smt. Ratna Roy Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Pradip Chatterjee Ms. Shruti Sarkar For the State : Ms. Supriya Singh Ms. Esha Acharya Heard on : 08.09.2026 Judgment on : 08.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. Challenging the order dated 22nd May, 2025, issued by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, whereby the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on the death of her father, Swapan Kumar Roy, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had filed the matrimonial suit for divorce before the learned District Judge, at Jalpaiguri on 8th October, 2024 i.e. after almost two years from the date of death of her father and since the said suit was also pending it was construed that the petitioner was not a dependent family member of Late Swapan Kumar Roy at the material point of time, as such, the 2 WPA 1485 of 2026 petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order would submit that the impugned order is based on improper application of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Special Bench of this Court in the case of the State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnima Das & Ors., in FMA 1277 of 2015. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, has completely misinterpreted the said judgment and has returned a finding that simply because the petitioner was married at the material point of time i.e. at the time of death of her father, was not entitled to be considered as dependent family member of her deceased father. According to him, the above order is cryptic and cannot be sustained and should be set aside. 3. Ms. Singh, learned advocate appears for the State. She would submit that the aforesaid order has been passed in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Special Bench of this Court in the case of Purnima Das & Ors (supra). According to her, in paragraph 113 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Judges of the Special Bench while striking down the adjective ‘unmarried’ before ‘daughter’ in the impugned notification dated 2nd April, 2008 and 3rd February, 2009, had also clarified that even after the need for compassionate appointment is established in accordance with the formula laid down (which itself is quiet stringent) for the concerned candidate i.e. a 3 WPA 1485 of 2026 daughter who is married on the date of death of the concerned Government employee, must succeed in her claim of being entirely dependent on the earnings of her father/mother (Government Employee) on the date of death of the employee. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find in the instant case the petitioner’s father, namely Swapan Kumar Roy, was a Group-D staff at Harinkhawa L.N. High School and had died in course of employment on 20th October, 2022, leaving behind and surviving Genabala Roy, the wife of the deceased, Ratna Roy, the first daughter of the deceased and Dipty Roy, another surving daughter of the deceased. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had duly made a representation on 21st December, 2023, for being entitled to employment on compassionate ground after the sad demise of her father. All particulars as regards the qualification of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment were also disclosed. Her application was also supported by relevant ‘no objection certificate’ of the other surviving legal heirs of the deceased. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had since filed a divorce petition on 8th October, 2024, which was registered as Mat. Suit 614 of 2024, for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and her husband, Dharamadev Roy, which had been solemnized in 2004, before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri. The marriage was ultimately dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 2nd December, 2025. Incidentally, in this case, I find that the sole ground based on which 4 WPA 1485 of 2026 the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment has been rejected is that on the date of death, the petitioner was not a divorcee and the divorce suit was filed belatedly after the death of her father. Consequentially, it has been noted that the petitioner was not a dependent family member of the deceased employee. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, I find that the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, had arrived at the aforesaid conclusion without there being any basis of the same. I find as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner, which has also been acknowledged by the learned advocate for the State, that the right to compassionate appointment is not dependent on the question whether the petitioner was married or divorcee at the relevant point of time. What was relevant was whether the petitioner was dependent on the family of the deceased. Admittedly, there is no independent finding by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, as to whether the petitioner was entirely dependent on the earnings of the family of the deceased, Late Swapan Kumar Roy independent of her marital status. The finding reached by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, that the petitioner was not dependent on the family of the deceased appears to be based on the marital status of the petitioner which, in my view, is not correct appreciation of the judgment and order delivered by the Hon’ble Special Bench of this Court in the case of Purnima Das & Ors. (supra). In my view, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, was required to ascertain whether the petitioner was entirely dependent 5 WPA 1485 of 2026 on the earnings of her deceased father at the time of death of her father and not whether she was married or divorcee at the relevant point of time. 5. In view thereof, the aforesaid order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, dated 22nd May, 2025, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. The matter is remanded back to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, to take a fresh decision, and ascertain whether the petitioner was at all dependent on the earnings of her father at the time of death of her father irrespective of her marital status by passing a reasoned order upon giving an opportunity of hearing petitioner. It is expected that the above exercise shall be concluded within a period of five weeks from the date of communication of this order. The said order must be forthwith communicated to the petitioner. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb A.R. (Court)