[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Joy Das vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 17 December, 2025
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
od-6
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA 2025:CHC-OS:268
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/708/2025
JOY DAS
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
BEFORE:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
Heard on : 03.12.2025, 17.12.2025.
Judgment on 17.12.2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Akeshdeep Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Soumyadip Nag, Adv.
Mr. SATyam Pandey, Adv. ....for petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal, Adv. ...for State.
Mr. N. C. Bihani, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Deblina Chattoraj, Adv. ...for CSTC.
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J:
1.
In the writ petition, order of Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport
Corporation dated 4th August, 2025 is questioned whereby prayer of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was spurned.
2. Father of the petitioner was an employee of Calcutta State Transport
Corporation (for short, 'CSTC'), who died in harness on 29th November,
2007. At the time of death of father, petitioner was minor. After death of
father, petitioner's mother applied for appointment on compassionate
ground. Previously, a writ petition was filed being WPO/1336/2023 (Joy
Das vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) claiming appointment on
compassionate ground wherein a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 22 nd
May, 2025 disposed of the writ petition directing the concerned authority
of CSTC to take steps in accordance with law relating to claim of the
petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground. However, in
the said order dated 22nd May, 2025 all issues were kept open and there
was a direction that the order passed on 27th April, 2022 in the writ 2025:CHC-OS:268
petition being WPO/1240/2021 (Upendra Kumar vs. The State of West
Bengal and Ors.) requires consideration by the concerned authority of
CSTC while deciding the claim of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate representing the
petitioner that while deciding the claim of the petitioner seeking
appointment on compassionate ground vide impugned order dated 4th
August, 2025, order of the Co-ordinate Bench in Upendra Kumar (supra)
was not considered and due consideration of the ratio of Upendra Kumar
(supra) would have altered the situation and claim of the petitioner could
have been decided otherwise.
4. Mr. Bihani, learned senior advocate representing the CSTC has opposed
the writ petition based on the decision taken by the Managing Director,
CSTC dated 4th August, 2025. It is submitted that all previous orders
and/or directions relating to appointment on compassionate ground were
either withdrawn or superseded vide Notification No.251-EMP dated 3rd
September, 2013 issued on behalf of the Labour Department, Government
of West Bengal. Relating to the claim of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground based on ratio of Upendra Kumar (supra), it is also
submitted that it was a case under Calcutta Tramways Company and in
the present case petitioner is seeking appointment in CSTC. Moreover, it is
asserted that there is no scheme prevalent which confers right upon the
dependent family member of the deceased employee to get appointment on
compassionate ground.
5. On submissions being made on behalf of the parties and taking note of the
relevant materials available on record, it is found that nothing is
demonstrated which shows existence of a scheme relating to
compassionate appointment as on date which could have been pressed
into service in order to decide the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, on 2025:CHC-OS:268
perusal of the impugned order dated 4th August, 2025 it transpires that all
previous orders and/or notifications regarding the appointment on
compassionate ground where either withdrawn or suspended vide
Government Notification No.251-EMP dated 3rd September, 2013.
6. In absence of valid scheme, right of a dependent family member of
deceased employee, who died in harness, cannot be taken into
consideration.
7. Moreover, what is striking that petitioner was indisputably minor on the
date of death on 29th November, 2007. It appears from the affidavit in
connection with the present writ petition that present age of the petitioner
is 32 years. Therefore, on the date of death of the employee on 29th
November, 2007 he was minor. In the case relating to the appointment on
compassionate ground unless scheme provides, a minor at the time of
date of death of employee has no right to be considered for appointment
on compassionate ground. The ratio of Upendra Kumar (supra) will not
apply in the present case since it was not a case of appointment of a
candidate, who was minor at the time of death of employee. In this
regard, reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench
reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 159 on two writ petitions, one is
Arindam Chowdhury vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. and another is
Anirban Jana vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. In the said judgment
Hon'ble Division Bench succinctly decided that right of a minor candidate
cannot be preserved till he becomes major for obtaining appointment on
compassionate ground if scheme is silent on this issue.
8. In view of the aforesaid situation, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
9. Writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J)
pkd.
