Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 40997 (CAL)

SAJJAT ALI MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

FMA/1081/2024 · 2026-09-14

Atarup Banerjee, Ravi Krishan Kapur

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

21 14.09.2026 Ct. No.17 J.Das FMA 1081 of 2024 IA NO.CAN/1/2017 (Old No.CAN/12129/2017) Sajjat Ali Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Mahadeb Sarkar Mr. Bivash Ch. Das …For the appellant 1. The instant appeal is directed against an order dated 8 November 2017 dismissing the writ petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the category of a family member for the purposes of compassionate appointment. 2. Briefly, the subject matter of the challenge in the present writ petition is an order dated 30 March 2013 passed by the State respondents rejecting the petitioner’s claim for grant of compassionate appointment. 3. The petitioner alleges to be the younger brother of one Saukat Ali Mondal who was appointed as Assistant Teacher on a basis of a recommendation issued by the West Bengal School Service Commission. The said Saukat Ali Mondal expired on 14 December 2009. In order to tied over the financial distress due to such death, the petitioner’s mother submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The mother had applied in favour of the petitioner. 4. By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge relying held that a Circular dated 12 October 1987 2 which was operative prior to the promulgation of the Rules 2009 i.e. the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for appointment to the posts of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2009. In this case since the death had occurred on 14 December 2009, the circular dated 12 October 1987 was inapplicable. 5. It is well settled that appointment of compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The prevalent rules at the time of death of the petitioner’s brother did not permit a brother of a deceased to claim compassionate appointment. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercise by the Trial Court. There has been no contravention of any law nor any perversity nor illegality warranting any interference with the exercise of such discretion. 6. In such circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. FMA 1081 of 2024 alongwith the connected application stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Atarup Banerjee, J.]