16.09.2026 12 sdas WPA 22103 of 2026 Puja Mallick Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Gupta Mr. Subhadeep Maitra ….. for the petitioner Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saikat Dey ….. for the State 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that her application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner’s father was an employee in the institute of Animal Health and Veterinary Biologicals, Belgachia, Kolkata. He had served from 1988 till his death on December 31, 2015. Since the petitioner was a minor at the material point of time, she made her application sometime in 2018 upon attaining majority. 3. The petitioner’s application had been rejected on November 25, 2025, by the authorities on the ground that the pension being received by the family of the deceased, was approximately 90% of his last drawn salary. The last drawn salary of the deceased employee was Rs.12,680/- per month and the 2 pension being received by his family members is Rs.11,541/- per month. 4. The authorities had rejected this claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the Notification No. 251-Emp dated December 3, 2013 whereby the eligibility criteria in Clause 6(i) thereof reads as under : “(i) The monthly income of the family falls below 90 per cent of the gross monthly salary of the employee before death or premature retirement.” 5. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 (Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) and (2005) 10 SCC 289 (Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.). 6. The eligibility criteria for being considered for compassionate appointment is clear and unequivocal and applies without any demur to the petitioner. The clause, as espoused in 251-Emp, has not been challenged. 7. Since it is conclusively established that the family pension being received by the members of the deceased employee’s family is more than 90% of his last drawn salary, the question of eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment does not arise. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Umesh Kumar 3 Nagpal (supra) is clear and unequivocal and stipulates that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is indeed an exception to the general Rule of appointment. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Govind Prakash Verma(supra) is also clear that mere receipt of family pension cannot be a ground in itself to refuse the compassionate appointment. In this case, the question of financial penury of the family of the deceased employee does not arise, as they are drawing 90% of the salary which the employee was drawing during his lifetime, as pension. The family members have survived from 2015 till present times and the question of any finance disability does not appear from the petition. 8. In view of the aforestated, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed 9. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)