18.09.2026 Item no. DL/14 Court No. 4 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. F.M.A. 499 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 In the matter of : SYED PARVEZ RAHAMAN …Appellant VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. …Respondents For the Appellant : Mr. Shamim Ahammed Mr. Arka Maity Ms. Saloni Bhattacharyya Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin Ms. Zoya Eram …Advocates For the Respondents/State : Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee Mr. Anirban Das …Advocate 1. Heard the learned advocates for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant’s father, a government employee on the post of Agragami Operator under the Water Wing Civil Defence, Government of West Bengal, died in-harness on 08.05.2016. The appellant’s mother submitted a plain paper application seeking appointment in favour of the present appellant (son of deceased government employee). The proforma containing all the requisite parameters for consideration was submitted thereafter on 18.06.2018. Page 2 of 9 3. Seven years thereafter, rejection was communicated to the appellant by a letter dated 09.07.2025 issued by the Commandant, Water Wing Civil Defence, Government of West Bengal. The same was put to challenged before the learned Single Judge unsuccessfully. The writ petition was dismissed on 26.02.2026, giving rise to the present intra-Court appeal. 4. The brief facts which are not in dispute arise after death of the appellant’s father in-harness on 08.05.2016. The plain paper application was submitted for compassionate appointment in favour of the appellant by his mother on 28.03.2018. The proforma containing the requisite information was submitted on 18.06.2018. The relevant policy/scheme for grant of compassionate appointment on the date of demise of the appellant’s father was notification no.26-Emp. dated 01.03.2016. By this notification issued by the Labour Department of the Government, the Government undertook a revision of the existing provisions in the earlier notification (notification no.251-Emp. dated 03.12.2013). 5. The learned Advocate for the State submitted that the notification No.251-EMP specified a time frame (6 months) for a dependent family member to apply for appointment. The petitioner’s date of birth is 01.02.2000. The date of demise of the government employee is 08.05.2016. The petitioner therefore, would not attain the minimum age for appointment (18 years), within 6 months from the date of death of the employee in harness. The petitioner therefore, was not eligible on the minimum age criteria for being considered for compassionate appointment. 6. We find that Note (c) under paragraph 6(c) of notification no.251-Emp. contemplated that the dependent member desirous of compassionate appointment should invariably attain a minimum age for recruitment within six months from the date of death/incapacitation of the employee. Such requirement was deleted by the notification no.26-Emp. 7. Revised Clause 10(a) of the notification no.26- Emp. introduced a timeline which required making of an application for compassionate appointment within two years. Therefore, the rule enabled a dependant family member who would attain majority within two years from the date of death of an employee in harness to make an application for compassionate appointment. The two provisions along with the revised provisions are significant for determination of the present case and therefore, are being quoted herein :- Existing Clause/ Para No. Existing provision Revised provision *** *** *** Note (c) under Para 6(c) of Notification No. 251-Emp. dated 03.12.13 The dependent member shall invariably attain the minimum age for recruitment within 6 months from the date of death or incapacitation of the concerned employee. Deleted *** *** *** 10 (a) of Notification No. 251-Emp. dated 03.12.13 If the family of the deceased or the employee retired on being permanently incapacitated is in need of financial assistance and the same is absolutely necessary to support the family, application for employment is to be submitted within six months from the date of death or retirement on permanent incapacitation. If no application is submitted within the said period it will be presumed that the family does not require any financial assistance. In no case application submitted after expiry of the above period will be entertained. TIMELINES :- If the family of the deceased or the employee retired on being permanently incapacitated is in need of financial assistance and the same is absolutely necessary to support the family, application for employment is to be submitted within two years from the date of death or retirement on permanent incapacitation. If no application is submitted within the said period it will be presumed that the family does not require any financial assistance. *** *** *** 8. A plain reading of the provision leaves no ambiguity on this point. The requirement of making an application within 6 months from the date of death of a government employee was revised and extended to a period of 2 years from the date of death of an employee in harness. The writ petitioner based on his date of birth (01.02.2000) would attain 18 years of age on 31.01.2018, whereas the date of death in harness of his father is 08.05.2016. Since the revised provision allows the petitioner 2 years from the date of demise (08.05.2016), for making an application the petitioner was entitled to make an application up to 07.05.2018. Therefore, the application dated 28.03.2018 filed by the petitioner’s mother seeking benefit of compassionate appointment for his favour was within time specified in the revised provision contain in 26-EMP dated 01.03.2016. 9. At this juncture, we take notice of the fact which is borne from the communication rejecting the appellant’s claim dated 09.07.2025. The same is founded only on one reason that a proforma application was not submitted. No such issue has been raised regarding a requirement of attaining majority within six months. The authorities have probably not raised such an issue because they were conscious of the amendment extending the time for making an application by the notification no.26-Emp. 10. However, we considered the submissions of the learned State advocate with reference to the notification/s; and reject such submission that the appellant was required to attain majority within six months from the date of death of the employee. 11. Therefore, the only issue raised by the authority in the impugned order, and pending consideration is whether non-filing of a proforma application within two years would defeat the writ petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, despite plain paper application having made within the requisite time (two years). 12. The issue is settled by a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mrinal Kanti Das Vs. The Joint Secretary, Public Works Department(W.B.) and Ors. passed in W.P.S.T. 36 of 2025. The judgment of the Coordinate Bench is dated 23.02.2026. Considering the relevant notification, the Court held :- “22. Even otherwise in view of decision of the apex Court in the case of Shreejith L (supra) the authorities were required to proceed on the basis of the above noted three applications dated 21.03.2016, 27.02.2017 and 27.02.2017, wherein the unambiguous claim and request for compassionate was conveyed to the respondent authorities by the writ petitioners. Submission of such application, which in substance is an application for the benefit of compassionate appointment is relevant to the time limit specified in the scheme. Once such application/s is submitted within the specified time frame a duty is cast on the authorities under Clause 10 (bb) of 26 -Emp to aid and assist the petitioners in availing the benefit. Non submission of proforma application within the time frame specified for making of an application for compassionate appointment cannot be detrimental to the claim of compassionate appointment. 23. The proforma application assumes significance at the time of consideration of the scheme and has no relevance to the time frame for making of an application. 24. While a plain paper application may suffice for meeting the timeline, the proforma is required for consideration of the relevant parameters. The proforma contains columns for filling up of the requisite details, based on which eligibility for the propose of compassionate appointment is considered. The proforma is therefore, essential for arriving at a subjective justification regarding admissibility or inadmissibility of the claim for compassionate appointment. 25. An applicant is, therefore, obliged to submit the proforma application at the earliest to facilitate consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment. 26. In a case where the plain paper application is submitted within time and the authority is conscious of such request from the dependents of a Government servant, left in penury due to sudden loss of the bread earner, Clause 10(bb) of 26-Emp. assumes significance. In such a situation, if the authorities have not discharge their responsibility of meeting the family members earlier, then at least after making an application on plain paper, they should immediately meet and/or advice and assist the dependents in availing the benefit of compassionate appointment, subject to eligibility.” 13. The issue having settled by the Coordinate Bench decision, we find no sustenance in the submission of the learned advocate for the State relying upon the communication dated 09.07.2025 rejecting the appellant’s claim for compassionate appointment merely for non- submission of a proforma application within two years. The rejection order in our view, therefore, is unsustainable. The same is hereby quashed. 14. The matter is remitted to the authority to examine the appellant’s eligibility without raising an issue of belated submission of proforma application and for taking a final decision making available the consequential benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. Based on considerations above, the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, in our view, is unsustainable. The order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.A. No.28702 of 2025 is hereby set aside. Page 9 of 9 16. The instant appeal is allowed and accordingly stands disposed of. 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Partha Pratim Roy, J. )