IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE: HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. For the petitioners : Mr. Supratim Dhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debottam Das, Adv. Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv. Heard on : 24.09.2026 Judgment on : 24th September, 2026 RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J: 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17th May, 2025 issued by the Chief Manager (Personnel), Kolkata Municipal Corporation, whereby the petitioner no.2's claim for compassionate appointment was turned down. In order to appreciate the challenge, it is necessary to note down the facts giving rise to the present writ petition. 2. The husband of the petitioner no.1, who is also the father of the petitioner no.2, was a permanent employee of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and had worked as a Roller Assistant/Junior Mechanic (Roads). Incidentally, he met his untimely death on 6th August, 2018 in course of his employment. At the time of WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 2 his death, he was survived by the petitioner no.1, the petitioner no.2, being his wife, married daughter and one Sudipta Mondal his only son. 3. Consequent upon the premature demise of the petitioner no.1’s husband having regard to the scheme for compassionate appointment, the petitioner no.1 had approached before the appropriate authority and had filed a declaration in the form of an affidavit seeking employment assistance for her only son Sudipta Mondal on compassionate appointment to tide over the financial crisis for the family. Though, the petitioner's son had appeared before the authorities for interview in connection with the claim for compassionate appointment, unfortunately on the date of his interview the petitioner's son died which was fixed on 6th September, 2022, at the tender age of 35 years. In the changed circumstances, the petitioner no.1 had initially applied for grant of employment in favour of her daughter-in-law Soma Mondal (Kahar) w/o Sudipta Mondal, since deceased. The authorities, however, rejected the same on the ground that the prevailing scheme did not permit consideration of the candidature of the daughter-in-law as a dependent of deceased employee of the municipal corporation. Later she initially applied for grant of employment for herself and subsequently for her daughter, the petitioner no.2. Despite the aforesaid claim, no decision was taken which prompted the petitioners to approach this Court by filing WPO/124/2024. By order dated 28th February, 2024, this Court directed the respondents to take a decision at the earliest. In furtherance thereto, the order dated 31st May, 2024 was passed. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ family was otherwise found eligible for grant of employment, however, since the daughter-in-law was otherwise not eligible in terms of the scheme, the candidature was rejected. The alternative claim made by the petitioner no.2 for obtaining employment was also rejected on WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 3 the ground that she also cannot be considered as a dependent of the deceased employee as she was found to be married and according to the respondents the prevailing scheme did not consider her as a dependent. Insofar as the petitioner no.1 was concerned, she was found to be eligible as dependent of the deceased and it was noted that her case could be considered. 5. Challenging the above rejection, a writ petition was filed which was registered as WPO 608 of 2024. By an order dated 27th November, 2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court by recognizing the right of the married daughter to be entitled to employment as a dependent of her father, while setting aside the order impugned directed the authorities to make an enquiry and ascertain whether the petitioner no.2 was dependent at the time of her father’s death, if the enquiry report is favourable, compassionate appointment was to be granted. 6. In view of the aforesaid direction, an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Manager (Personnel) which culminated in the above order. From a perusal of the above order it would reveal, to consider whether the petitioner no.2 was dependent at the time of death of the deceased, the Chief Manager (Personnel) had recorded the statements of three neighbours and that of the petitioner no.2. She was required to submit statement of a bank account of her father, her mother, her husband and that of herself. She was also required to submit Aadhar Card, EPIC & PAN of her husband, income certificates of her husband and of herself including the school identity card of her daughter. The impugned order records that the petitioner no.2 had stated that subsequent to the death of her father, her husband has started to live most of the time at her parental home. Sometimes he worked as a helper in the grocery shop and occasionally visited Durgapur. She had also stated that she was married in the year 2004 and at that point of time her husband had a partnership business and ran a WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 4 medicine shop by the name of R. M. Drug Association at Agrani Street, Benachiti, Dugapur. In the year 2009, the shop was shut down and after that her husband tried to find out a job but failed, and due to scarcity of fund could not establish any business. 7. Relying on the above and the available materials on record, the Chief Manager had compared the statements and the documents and had concluded that the petitioner no.2 was a pro makeup artist, designation ‘PA’ and the occupation of her husband was ‘DSP Contractual Worker’, designation ‘Helper’. As per the bank account statement of her husband, it was found that he was in receipt of salary even at the time of death of the father of the petitioner no.2. Following the same, it had been concluded that “as per the scheme which is in vogue since 2008, the condition of solely dependent on the deceased remained unfulfilled in the instant case due to reasons stated herein above”. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view, to consider the above case, it would be relevant to consider the existing special regulations for employment on compassionate grounds. To more fully appreciate the same, paragraphs 2 (A), (B) and 3 of the scheme being DMC(P)’s Circular No.47/VIII/2008-09 dated 17th January, 2009 are extracted hereinbelow:- “2(A). One of the dependants of a Corporation employee who dies in harness or who retires prematurely on being declared permanently incapacitated may be offered appointment on compassionate ground if- (i) the family of the deceased or the retired employee as the case may be is in need of immediate assistance: and (ii) the employee had at the time of premature retirement at least two years of service left to reach the normal age of superannuation. Provided that in the case of appointment of a dependant of a Corporation employee who retires prematurely on being declared permanently incapacitated all the following conditions shall have to be fulfilled:- (a) On premature retirement he/she would not be entitled to the full pensionary benefits to which he/she would have been entitled if he/she had retired at his/her normal age of superannuation: (b) He/She has fully exhausted all kinds of leave with pay including commuted leave on medical ground: WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 5 (e) He/she had two years of service or more left to reach the age of superannuation and (d) The financial condition of the family is so acute as to make the appointment essential consequent upon the fall in income due to such retirement (B) For the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground, a dependant of a Corporation employee shall mean wife/husband/son/unmarried daughter of the employee, who is/was solely dependent on the Corporation employee 3. One of the condition that needs to be fulfilled for offering appointment on compassionate ground is that the family of the deceased or prematurely retired employee is in need of immediate financial assistance. It is here by clarified that the family of a deceased or prematurely retired employee shall be considered to be in need of immediate financial assistance, if any of the two conditions mentioned below is satisfied. (a) The family of the deceased/prematurely retired employee will be considered to be in need of immediate financial assistance if the monthly income falls below 90% of the gross monthly salary of the employee before death or premature retirement. (b) The monthly income of the family falls below the minimum salary of a Category-D employee (in case of Category-D employees) or the minimum salary of a Junior Assistant (in case of employees other than those belonging to the Category-D). The gross monthly salary, for the purpose of this definition shall mean basic pay along with dearness pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and medical allowance, The monthly income of the family shall mean the aggregate of: (a) Total family pension per month (Basic, Dearness Pension and Relief etc.) (b) Monthly interest income @ 8% p.a. on the total amount received by the family after death of the employee or retirement of the incapacitated employee (Gratuity, Leave Encashment, any other payments). Since G.P.F. accumulation is entirely out of savings of the Corporation employee during his service period, the same shall not be reckoned for the purpose of computing the monthly interest income. Provided that, where an ex-employee had to incur medical expenses as indoor patient prior to and leading to his/her death/incapacitation, such expenses may be deducted from the amount received. All such expenses must be supported by original receipt/cash memo, hospital discharge certificates. (c) Monthly income from movable and immovable properties (the family members are expected to submit a declaration on the matter). (d) Monthly income of the dependants of the ex-employee named in the application (the family members are expected to submit a declaration on the matter).” As would appear from the above, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner no.1 died while still in service. There is also no contest on the claim made by the petitioners that they are in need of financial assistance as their claim falls within the condition specified in paragraph 3 of the scheme, at least it has not been the stand of the respondents that they do not fulfill the requirements of paragraph 3 of the scheme for the last four years while considering the application for compassionate appointment. The only hurdle appears to be on WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 6 the issue whether the petitioner no.2 can be said to be solely dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his death. 9. This Court has scanned the order however, could not identify any finding based on which the aforesaid observation could be rendered by the concerned authority. Simply because the petitioner no.2's husband was helper or was or is earning some money to somehow maintain himself, the same could not have made the petitioner no.2 ineligible for grant of employment. It is also wholly irrelevant as to whether the petitioner no.2 is at present a makeup artist. The Chief Manager cannot expect the petitioner no.2 to stay alive without any means of livelihood or to starve to death. The test is whether the gross monthly income of the family falls below 90 per cent of the gross salary of the deceased employee before his death. This Court is also shocked to note that the Chief Manager has gone on to record in his order that the petitioner no.2 has attempted to act in a mala fide manner and to secure employment by presenting false submission. This observation is not appreciated by this Court. The Chief Manager (Personnel) while recording such observation ought to have kept in mind that the petitioners’ family has suffered one disaster after another. Not only the employee died in course of employment but unfortunately, the only son of the petitioner no.1 and the brother of the petitioner no.2 died on the date of the interview, after being selected for the same. This aspect was completely overlooked by the Chief Manager (Personnel). There appears to be no empathy in the concerned authority while making the above observation. It must have been borne in mind by the Chief Manager that simply because he adorns a high post, the same does not make him any different from the deceased, as both were employed by the same employer. WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 7 10. I find that the concerned officer in his zeal to deny the employment on the basis of the observation as aforesaid did not find it fit to confine his findings on dependency of the petitioner no.2 at the time of death of the deceased which, in my view, was the most relevant criteria having regard to the fact that the authorities had otherwise come to a conclusion that the family of the deceased required immediate financial assistance, having regard to the observations made in the order dated 31st May, 2024. Simply because the petitioner no.2 has some earning or her husband has some earnings, the same cannot be a ground to conclude that she was not dependent of the deceased at the time of his death. 11. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the consideration in the order was based on complete non-application of the legal requirement for considering a case for compassionate appointment, in my view, the final finding reached by the Chief Manager (Personnel) appears to be perverse. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to the municipality. The Municipal Commissioner is directed to place this matter before any other competent officer apart from the officer who has dealt with the matter. It is also made clear that an independent enquiry shall be conducted by the authorities now, restricted to the issue as to whether the petitioner no.2 was solely dependent on the deceased, at the time of his death and not whether she has some earning now. The minimum earnings for sustaining the family of the deceased as a makeup artist shall not stand a bar to the grant of employment on compassionate ground and the authorities must give appropriate opportunity to the petitioner no.2 to deal with any additonal evidence they intend to rely on. 13. The authorities are directed to decide the matter limited to the issue noted hereinabove within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of WPO/522/2025 MAYA RANI MONDAL AND ANR. VS KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 8 this order and if the petitioner no.2 is found eligible on the basis of the case made out by her, especially when the petitioner no.2 has discharged her burden by declaring her status, the employment shall be offered within seven working days thereafter. 14. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) akg/