Compassionate appointment policies prioritize family welfare over strict age criteria, allowing exceptions in exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The father of the petitioner died in harness serving the police force as a constable. His date of death is 19.10.2015. The Petitioner’s mother made an application on 08.03.2016 seeking a benefit of compassionate appointment in respect of her elder son. The son’s claim was pending before the authorities for nearly two years when he unfortunately passed away on 05.05.2018. Immediately thereafter the mother made an application for the benefit of compassionate appointment in favour of the present petitioner/younger son of the deceased. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was submitted on 14.06.2018. The same has been rejected by a communication dated 29.11.2019 issued by the O.S.D & ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Police Establishment Branch of the Home & Hill Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal. The relevant extract containing the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s claim reads:

“It appears that the candidate was only 15 (fifteen) years 4 (four) days old on the date of death and he was not the only eligible dependent family member to apply. So the proposal does not fulfil required conditions as laid down in the Notification No. 251-Emp dated 03.12.2013 read with Notification No. 26-Emp dated 01.03.2016 of Labour Department, Government of West Bengal for being eligible to be considered for appointment under exempted category.

Accordingly, I am directed to state that the Government regrets its inability to approve this case for appointment under the exempted category in the light of the guideline contained in Notification No. 251-Emp dated 03.12.2013 of Labour Department read with subsequent amendments.”

3. The petitioner assailed the rejection order before West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (S.A.T for short) by filing O.A. No. 33 of 2021. The Tribunal has not entertained the petitioner’s challenge to the rejection order and has disposed of the petitioner’s Original Application as being devoid of any merit.

4. The order of the S.A.T dated 29.01.2025 passed in O.A. 33 of 2021 is the subject matter of the present proceedings.

5. Before we proceed to deal with the matter on merits we consider it apposite to record that from a plain reading of the notification/s issued on 03.12.2013 bearing no. 251-Emp and notification dated 01.03.2016 bearing no. 26-Emp a concept emerges that the compassionate appointment is given for benefit of the “family” and not the individual claiming the appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the notifications issued by the State manifests such intention it is expected that the claim of the applicants are also considered, processed; and a decision taken thereupon having regard to the intent of the notifications containing the policy of compassionate appointment, being for the benefit of the family of the employee who died in harness.

6. The facts lie in a very narrow compass and not in dispute that the application was initially made for the petitioner’s elder brother. It is not in dispute that the application was within time. The second application was made by the mother of the petitioner under a compelling and special circumstance being the sad demise of the first applicant (elder brother of the present petitioner).

7. Insofar as the objection of the respondents that the petitioner did not fulfil the minimum requisite age criteria for grant of compassionate