IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad AND The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya W.P.S.T 97 of 2025 Promod Rai @ Promod Kumar Rai Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Others For the petitioner : Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Mr. Arun Shaw For the State Respondents : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP, Mr. Somnath Naskar Heard on : 20.06.2025 Judgment on : 20.06.2025 MADHURESH PRASAD, J.:

1. The petitioner’s father died while in harness on 03.11.1999.

There were two persons claiming to be wife of the deceased. The issue was set at rest by decision of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2^nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 1867 of 2008. The Civil Court decreed in favour of the petitioner’s mother, Smt.

Kanniya Rai.

2. The petitioner’s pending claim for compassionate appointment was thereafter required to be processed. There is material on record to show that the authorities had intimation regarding the decree passed in favour of the petitioner’s mother in the year 2014. However, the authorities have taken nearly six and half years to consider the petitioner’s claim, that also after the petitioner was compelled to seek a direction in this regard by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The Tribunal’s order to this effect is dated 06.09.2019 passed in M.A. 132 of 2019 (O.A. No. 446 of 2017). However, the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Irrigation and Waterways Department has finally passed an order in respect of the petitioner’s claim nearly two and half years after the order was passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 446 of 2017. The consideration of the petitioner’s claim in the order passed by the Secretary on 05.05.2021 is in the following terms:

“Again, it is noteworthy to observe that Sri Pramod Kumar Rai, the applicant for such compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness category is aged over 42 years, is solely dependent upon his widow mother as submitted and it appears that the monthly income of the family of Smt. Kanniya Rai where Sri Pramod Kumar Rai is also a member, is Rs. 9255/- where Sri Pramod Kumar Rai contributes nothing as per the aforesaid Affidavit of Smt. Kanniya Rai dated 01.03.2021. The fact that Sri Pramod Kumar Rai who appears to be a healthy person with no visible physical disability does not do any gainful work and is totally dependent on his mother’s income from family pension renders him underserving for Government employment. Hence, In find this is not a fit case for favourable consideration of age relaxation for the purpose of offering a compassionate appointment.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s claim cannot be rejected on the ground assigned by the impugned order as such a situation has been precipitated by delay on part of the authorities in considering the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner diligently approached the authorities. There was some bonafide delay in the claim based on the proceedings pending in the Civil Court, noted above. Even after decision of the Civil Court the authorities have taken more than six and half years. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age (40 years). The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse on the part of the authorities, since they have not considered the claim of the petitioner with due diligence.

4. Learned AGP on the other hand submits that the issue of relaxation of age was also considered by the authorities which has been rejected. He further submits age of a candidate is not the only factor which is required to be considered in terms of the various circulars of the State Government governing the field of claims regarding compassionate appointment. The respondents are required to see that petitioner is eligible on each and every parameter for grant of compassionate appointment.

5. On perusal of the records and the submission of the rival parties we find that the timelin