Item No.10

16.02.2026 Court. No. 7 GB CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI FMA 27 of 2023 Snehankur Sarkar VS The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Abhishek Sarkar … for the Appellant. Ms. Bedashruti Bose … for the Respondent No.2

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge dated October 31, 2022, passed in WPA 2130 of 2022.

2. His Lordship was of the view that the prayer for compassionate appointment on the death of the appellant’s father who expired in 2009, could not be allowed in 2022. His Lordship referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and held that the idea of granting compassionate appointment was to allow the family of the sole bread earner to tide over immediate financial crisis, which the family would have faced on his demise. As thirteen years had already passed since the death of the appellant’s father and the family survived, there was no reason for the Court to interfere with the order passed by the Director of Local Bodies.

3. The Director of Local Bodies did not approve the proposal of the municipality, on the ground that unless the Labour Department’s memo with regard to grant of compassionate appointment to family members of a deceased employee of the Urban Local Bodies under the Urban and Municipal Affairs Department was adopted and the policy on compassionate appointment of 2013 was made applicable to municipalities, such approval could not be given.

4. The proposal of the Chairman was received by the Directorate in 2016 when the Government order of 2005 had no existence and had been superseded by the memo of 2013. The memo of 2013 was not applicable to Municipal employees. Such fact was also confirmed by the Finance Department.

5. Under such circumstances, the prayer of the appellant was rejected by the concerned authority. The authority had passed the order pursuant to a direction of the High Court by which another learned Single Judge had directed the Directorate of Local Bodies, West Bengal to take a decision on the claim of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground.

6. Grant of compassionate appointment upon death of an employee, is an exception to the general rule of appointment to be followed in public employment.

7. Thus, such appointment is given under exceptional cases, i.e. when the family of the deceased is unable to sustain itself. It is to save the family from immediate penury. The appellant did not have any heritable or vested right to be appointed in place of his father. The imminent crisis is over. The family has been able to sustain itself.

8. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the municipality had intentionally delayed the matter and he refers to a document dated November 21, 2016, in support of such contention.

9. The delay caused by the municipality cannot be a reason for the Government to approve the proposal of the municipality after seventeen years had passed. Compassionate appointment is granted on the basis of a scheme or policy and in this case it was found that the policy of the Labour Department of 2013 which was prevalent when the appellant’s case was being considered, was not applicable to municipal employees.

10. The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bank of Baroda and Others. vs. Baljit Singh reported in (2023) 13 SCC 343 are quoted below :-

“12. It is necessary to reiterate that the appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right and that it is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the scheme applicable at the relevant point of time that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment.

13. In Balbir Kaur v. SAIL [Balbir Kaur v. SAIL (2000) 6 SCC 493 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 767] it was observed that the family benefit scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of deceased employee on the facts therein was not a substitute for compassionate appointment by the Steel Authority of India—respondent in the said case. Th