Form No. J(1).

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present: Madhuresh Prasad

The Hon’ble Justice

And

The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

WPST No. 176 of 2025

Arya Sengupta

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the appellant: Mr. Uttam Kumar Ghosh.

For the respondent: Mr. Bibhawan Bhattacharyya.

Heard on : 21^st April, 2023

Judgment on: : 28^th August, 2025

Supratim Bhattacharya, J

1. The present writ petition has been preferred by the applicant of the original

application being O.A. No.724 of 2022.

2. Through the said original application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 17th December, 2021, passed by the Additional Director of Health Services (Personnel) & Ex-Officio Special Secretary, West Bengal, thereby rejecting the

application for appointment of the petitioner/applicant on compassionate ground.

3. The factual matrix of the lis is that the mother of the present petitioner, namely, Rakhi Saha (Sengupta) expired on 15th April, 2000 leaving behind her husband namely Somnath Sengupta and son the present petitioner, namely Arya Sengupta, who was

then aged about 2 years 9 months. On the death of Rakhi Saha (Sengupta) the employee, her husband had filed an application seeking appointment of his son, that is the present petitioner, as to when the present petitioner would attain majority.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner on attaining majority, prayed for appointment on compassionate ground on 28^th December, 2015. The said prayer seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected which has given rise to the present lis.

5. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal after considering submission of the learned advocates of the contending parties has been pleased to dispose of the said original application on 19^th November, 2024 by passing the following order:-

“In this case, it is evident that these two conditions were not met-the death of the employee was not “in action” and the father of the applicant was eligible for such an employment. From the application, it also becomes clear that it was a planned application for the applicant to attain the age of 18 years and then apply. In para – IV of the application, the applicant himself had mentioned that he was under aged at the time of death of his mother. Such an application was preferred only after he attained the age of 18. It is relevant and pertinent to mention that the scheme for compassionate appointment is a need based concept and not a right to be claimed by members of the deceased family. Such an employment is to be provided as a minimum succor if the family is passing through serious financial and economic difficulties. In this case, the strong impression gained by this Tribunal is that the applicant considered such a compassionate employment as his legal right. Mere death of a government employee does not give any legitimacy for claiming such an employment. Further, the scheme is intended for a family member who fulfils all the eligibility criteria. In this case, however, the applicant being a minor at the time of death of his mother could not fulfil one of the main eligibility criterias.

Having observed above and not being satisfied with the contention of the applicant, this application is disposed of without passing any orders”.

6. Learned advocate representing the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the deceased employee being father of the petitioner at the time of expiry of the employee that is on 15^th April, 2000 had sought for appointment of the petitioner after the petitioner attains majority. He has further submitted that the present petitioner after attaining majority has preferred the application seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

7. Learned advocate representing the respondent has submitted that the impugned order passed by the tribunal requires no interference and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. On consideration of the submission of the learned advocates, it transpires