Dipankar Datta, J.

1. While hearing C.A.N. 12495 of 2014 (an application for stay) in an intra-court writ appeal [M.A.T. 2234 of 2014 (State of West Bengal & ors. v. Purnima Das & ors.)], since renumbered F.M.A. 1277 of 2015, a Division Bench of this Court on June 25, 2015 passed the following order:

“Having regard to the judgments of different Division Benches on the same issue contravening each other, we are of the opinion, the matter has to be referred to Larger Bench.

Place it before the Chief Justice for necessary order.”

2. By an administrative order dated February 17, 2016 passed on the file of F.M.A. 1277 of 2015, the Hon’ble the Chief Justice constituted a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, to be presided over by Her Ladyship, to hear the same. The said Bench could not conclude hearing of the appeal owing to transfer of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

3. A subsequent administrative order of the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice dated December 7, 2016 resulted in constitution of this Bench to hear F.M.A. 1277 of 2015.

4. W.P.S.T. 447 of 2013 (Arpita Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & ors.) and W.P.S.T. 78 of 2014 [Kakali Chakraborty (Dutta) v. State of West Bengal & ors.) are writ petitions directed against the decisions of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereafter the WBAT), whereby the challenge laid before it by the respective applicant was spurned. While hearing these writ petitions, a Division Bench noticed that the issue arising for decision was “similar to the matter pending adjudication before the Special Bench in F.M.A. 1277 of 2015”. Accordingly, by an order dated November 25, 2016, these writ petitions were directed to be “placed before the Special Bench”. A further administrative order dated January 12, 2017 of the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice followed, resulting in placement of all the writ appeals/writ petitions before us.

5. The basic issue in the writ appeal/writ petitions requiring determination is almost common. It arises out of denial of appointment on compassionate grounds to married daughters of Government employees who died-in-harness, on the specious ground that such daughters are not eligible in terms of the relevant scheme for compassionate appointment.

6. Before proceeding further, it is considered proper to place on record that the Division Bench in its order dated June 25, 2015 passed in F.M.A. 1277 of 2015 having not formulated any question for an answer by the larger Bench, the following question was formulated by us in course of hearing for decision: “Whether the policy decision of the State Government to exclude from the zone of compassionate appointment a daughter of an employee, dying-in-harness or suffering permanent incapacitation, who is married on the date of death/permanent incapacitation of the employee although she is solely dependent on the earnings of such employee, is constitutionally valid?”

7. The parties to F.M.A. 1277 of 2015, W.P.S.T. 447 of 2013 and W.P.S.T. 78 of 2014 were put on notice and their respective learned advocates heard at length. They advanced extensive arguments by placing the relevant circulars governing compassionate appointment under the State and also by citing decisions of various high courts touching the relevant point. Written notes of arguments were filed on behalf of Arpita, Kakali and the State, upon obtaining leave from us.

The genesis of the lis

8. Tracing the genesis of the lis would inevitably require taking a close look at the facts and circumstances that triggered the proceedings before the writ court by Purnima and before the WBAT by Arpita and Kakali.

F.M.A. 1277 of 2015

9. Purnima, the first respondent in the appeal, is the daughter of Haru Chandra Das (since deceased). He was employed as chowkidar under Bara-II Gram Panchayat when he breathed his last on March 11, 2011. Late Haru Chandra Das left behind him his widow and three daughters, all married, Purnima being the youngest. After the death of the employee, his widow