21.09.2026 Item no.22 Ct. no.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. 10532 of 2026 Sayan Mondal -Vs- State of West Bengal & ors. , Mr. Soumen Kr. Dutta Ms. Juthika Barman ... for the petitioner Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee Mr. B. K. Singh Mr. Barun Ghosh Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh Mr. Jayanta Mitra … for the State Mr. Samaresh Chandra Dhara … for the DPSC, Purba Medinipur 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to pass a reasoned order by giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground considering the application submitted by the petitioner dated 30th March, 2026,being annexure P8,to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner contends that his mother namely, late Shiuli Barman Mandal joined as an Assistant Teacher in Medakhali Adarsa Banipith, P.O. Kartickkhali, Police Station Khejuri, under Khedgree Circle, District Purba Medinipur on 16th February, 2002. The petitioner’s mother was subsequently transferred to Buran Primary School under Patashpur South Circle, District Purba Medinipur. The mother of the petitioner died-in- harness on 26th August, 2020. At the time of her 2 death the petitioner was a minor aged about 13 years. The petitioner’s father did not look after him and the petitioner started to reside in his maternal grandfather’s house. The maternal grandfather submitted an application before the authority concerned on 3rd August, 2022, within two years of the death of petitioner’s mother, seeking for appointment of his grandson, namely the petitioner herein on compassionate ground. After attaining majority, the petitioner again submitted an application on 30th March, 2026 seeking for his appointment on compassionate ground. However, the authority concerned has not considered the same as yet. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that at the time of death of his mother, the petitioner was a minor aged about 13 years. However, the application submitted by the maternal grandfather of the petitioner was made within two years after the death of the deceased employee as per requirement of Rule 14 of the West Bengal Primary Teachers’ Recruitment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2001’). After attaining majority, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 30th March, 2026. Therefore, the cause of action for appointment on compassionate ground ought to be considered as continuing one. To buttress his 3 contention, he relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Syed Khadim Hussain - versus- State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2006 (9) SCC 195 and decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in The Chairman, District Primary School Council -versus- Sri Prithwish Samanta & ors., reported in 2011(1) WBLR (CAL) 664. He seeks appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities particularly, the District Primary School Council, Purba Medinipur to consider the application of the petitioner seeking for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Samaresh Chandra Dhara, learned Advocate representing the District Primary School Council, Purba Medinipur submits that the rules for appointment on compassionate ground clearly envisages that the application ought to be made within a period of two years from the date of death of the employee. In the case at hand, the application was submitted after a lapse of six years and as such the same cannot be considered. 5. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, learned Advocate representing the State-respondents submits that the time fixed in the Rule is rigid and the subsequent application after attaining majority is not lawful application and cannot be said to be a continuing process. To buttress his contention he relies on the decision of a Larger Bench of this Hon’ble Court passed in Piali Saha versus State 4 of West Bengal, reported in 2012 Supreme (Cal) 877 : 2013 1 CHN 18. 6. Upon hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, the only issue which falls for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. 7. The Larger Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Piali Saha (supra) considered two questions namely (i) Whether an applicant seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the death-in-harness category who was a minor at the time of death of the concerned teacher or was a minor at the time of making an application within the statutory time framed of 2 years has any legal right to be considered for such appointment as a minor and (ii) Whether on attaining majority a subsequent application can be deemed to be held as a continuing process notwithstanding the fact that such application was made after the statutory period of 2 years? 8. Upon due consideration of the above issues, the Larger Bench in Piali Saha (supra) observed as follows: “17. If the period which has not been contemplated in the Rule intended to create a right cannot be extended by the Court. In other words when the legislature has fixed a time limit in relation to substantive law the Court cannot taking the task of legislature extends time limit, simply it amount to amendment of Rule. The Court cannot have any amending power of the legislation. 18. Under those circumstances as Supreme Court has been pleased to observe in the case quoted above the aforesaid rule is a mandatory in character, we answer the aforesaid questions in the manner as follows: 5 The time fixed in the said Rule is a rigid, subsequent application after attaining majority is not a lawful application and the same cannot be said to be a continuing process. Now we send down the writ petition for assigning finally taking note of our decision.” 9. It is relevant to note that the Larger Bench has also considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain (supra) as well as the decision in Sri Prithwish Samanta (supra). 10. Indisputably, the application has been filed by the petitioner on attaining majority on 30th March, 2026, which is after a lapse of more than five years of death of concerned employee. Although an earlier application, as per the petitioner, was submitted by the maternal grandfather within two years of the death of the concerned employee yet it cannot be said to be a continuing process. Bearing in mind the aforesaid observation of the Larger Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Piali Saha (supra), the prayer in the writ petition falls short of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 10532 of 2026 stands dismissed. 12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 13. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 6 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. ( Bivas Pattanayak, J.)