SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3188

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Madhuresh Prasad, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ
Chanchal Majumder – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others – Respondent
W.P.S.T. 78 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shambhu Nath Ray, Ms. Sharmistha Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Munmum Das
For the Respondents: Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Ld. AGP, Ms. Sangeeta Roy

Civil death declaration impacts compassionate appointment eligibility, requiring consideration post-declaration date.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 108 - Compassionate appointment policy by Government of West Bengal - Dismissal order on account of missing person quashed - Consideration for compassionate appointment made within stipulated time period. (Paras 2, 5, 7, 10)

(B) Civil death status - Application for compassionate appointment could only be made after the civil death declaration - Date of civil death seen as 20.09.2011 - Authority's rejection based on earlier erroneous date taken to be unsustainable. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner's father went missing during election work, declared civilly dead in 2011, the dismissal order for absence from service was set aside, allowing the claim for compassionate appointment post-declaration of civil death.

Findings of Court:
The rejection of compassionate appointment was based on non-application of mind and considered a perverse ground as the legal status of the deceased was misinterpreted.

Issues: Whether the civil death declaration allows for consideration of a compassionate appointment application and if the authorities acted reasonably in their decision.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the dismissal order unsustainable and upheld that applications for compassionate appointment must be evaluated based on actual death status.

Result: The order of the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s claim was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Understood. Please provide the legal document content within tags (replacing {content}), and I'll extract and summarize the key points with individual references as instructed (e.g., (!) (!) ).


Table of Content
1. timeline of events leading to compassionate appointment. (Para 2 , 3)
2. requirement of timely application for appointment. (Para 4 , 5)
3. rejection criteria must adhere to legal facts. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's rectification of jurisdiction error. (Para 8 , 10)
5. final decision to allow the writ petition. (Para 9)

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

2. The present petitioner’s father was working as a Constable and was posted in the 5th Battalion of S.A.P Durgapur. He was assigned election work on 14.06.1998. On and from this date he has gone missing. On account of his being absent from duty the authorities initiated a proceeding against him and have passed an order of dismissal exparte on 30.11.2002. The mother of the petitioner after waiting for some time for the father to return has filed the Title Suit No. 3086 of 2008 seeking a declaration of death of her husband which decree has been passed in view of the provisions contained in Section 108 of the Evidence Act on 20.09.2011. The death of the present petitioner’s father is de jure, which can be said to have occurred on 20.09.2011 that is with effect from the date of passing of the decree by the Civil Judge, 5th Court at Alipore declaring a civil death.

3. Thereafter the wife of the deceased has moved the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (S.A.T) by filing O.A. 1003 of 2012 assailing the dismissal order and claiming consequential relief of various terminal/retiral benefits in respect of her husband. The S.A.T has set aside the entire proceedings culminating into the order of dismissal and directed all service benefits as a consequence of quashing of the dismissal order including family pension etc. to be paid to the applicant therein (wife of the deceased) within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

4. Having considered the submissions we find that after the father of the present petitioner went missing on 14.05.1998 there was no occasion to make an application for compassionate appointment. The civil death of his father can be said to be with effect from the date of passing of the decree by the Court on 20.09.2011. Since an application for compassionate appointment can only be made after death of the employee in harness, the petitioner could make an application only after 20.09.2011 for compassionate appointment. However, there was another impediment which prevented the petitioner from making an application, being the dismissal order dated 30.11.2002, purporting to dismiss the petitioner’s father from service, which was set aside by the Tribunal on 04.09.2020. Thus, before 04.09.2020 there was no scope for the petitioner to make any application for compassionate appointment.

5. The circular containing the policy of compassionate appointment applicable at the relevant time was 26- Emp. issued by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal on 1st March, 2016. The same provides a period of two years from the date of death or retirement or permanent incapacitation of an employee for making application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner, therefore, had time till 03.09.2022 to make his application. The mother of the petitioner has made the application well within the stipulate two year period, that is on 17.08.2021.

6. The authorities have passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on 21.08.2023. This order of rejection was the subject matter of the proceedings before the S.A.T in O.A. 784 of 2023, out of which the present writ proceedings arises.

7. On perusal of the rejection order dated 21.08.2023 it is apparent that the order suffers from non application of mind and is a mechanical order. As on

21.08.2023 the authorities were well aware of the fact that civil death of the petitioner was declared by the Civil Court on 20.09.2011. They were parties to the earlier Original Application proceedings (O.A. 1003 of 2012) wherein the dismissal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top