IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 01.05.2025 DELIVERED ON: 06.05.2025 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH W.P.O. 1020 OF 2024 SAMBRITA GANGULY VERSUS THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Appearance:-

Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv.

Mr. Arijit Dey, Adv.

…..For the Petitioner Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Adv.

Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv. …………….…..For the KMC JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Chief Manager (Personnel), Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "KMC"), vide communication No. P/317/IVC/2024-25 dated 12.07.2024, whereby the Petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected.

2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows:

3. The Petitioner’s father, Mr. Snehangshu Sekhar Ganguly, was employed as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the CME (Civil) Department of the Respondent Corporation, bearing Employee ID No. 38100. He suffered a massive cardiac arrest and passed away on 18.06.2019, leaving behind his widow and the Petitioner as his sole surviving legal heirs.

4. All death-cum-retirement benefits were disbursed to the Petitioner’s mother. Additionally, the monthly family pension of the deceased was sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner’s mother.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner was married to one Mr.

Prasun Debnath on 16.08.2010. However, due to incompatibility, the parties were divorced on 08.11.2017. Accordingly, on the date of her father's demise, the Petitioner was a divorced daughter, and her case is that she was entirely dependent on her father for sustenance.

6. In view of the above circumstances, the Petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 27.09.2019. The Petitioner’s mother also submitted an affidavit declaring that she had no objection if the employment benefit of her deceased husband was granted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner further undertook to take care of her mother during her lifetime.

7. Subsequently, vide letter dated 24.02.2023, the Deputy Personnel Officer, Personnel Department of the Respondent Corporation, informed the Petitioner that her application had been considered in the 127th Meeting of the Special Regulation Committee held on 29.11.2022, and it was resolved to reject the application under Clause 2B of the extant Special Regulations.

8. The Petitioner challenged the said rejection in W.P.O. No. 24 of 2024.

This Hon’ble Court, by order dated 09.04.2024, was pleased to set aside the said rejection. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below:

“The Petitioner seeks compassionate appointment. She happens to be the married daughter of a deceased employee of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The Petitioner’s prayer has been rejected by the authority on the ground of her marriage.

The fact that married daughters cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration for compassionate appointment has been conclusively decided by a Larger Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 13th September 2017 in F.M.A. 1277 of 2015 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnima Das & Ors.). The same principle has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 17th February 2023 passed in M.A.T. 698 of 2020 with C.A.N. 1 of 2022 (Payel Bhattacharya Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors.).

In light of the settled position of law, there is no justification for rejecting the Petitioner’s application on the ground of her marital status. The impugned order dated 24th February 2023 and the decision taken by the Special Regulation Committee in its 127th meeting dated 29th November 2022 are accordingly set aside.

The Corporation is directed to reconsider the Petitioner’s application in view of the judgments in Purnima Das (supra) and Payel Bhattacharya (supra) after affording the Pe