Dismissed¶¶28

Panchanan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Dec 2025MAT/1685/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; dependent of deceased primary school Head Teacher; death in harness 1978; applicant minor at date of death; no right accrued; no continuing wrong; claim does not subsist indefinitely; delay condonation; Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 distinguished; Gopal Mondal (2012) 2 CHN 705 no manner of application; Jagdish Prasad (1996) 1 SCC 301 cited by counsel; WPA 9336 of 2025 dismissed affirmed; MAT 1685 of 2025; State of West Bengal; DPSC Malda.

What did the court decide?

The explanation offered for the delay in filing the appeal was accepted and the delay condoned; CAN 1 of 2025 was disposed of and the appeal taken up for final hearing. ¶¶13

Panchanan Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in preferring the present appeal ought to be condoned. +2 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The explanation offered for the delay in filing the appeal was accepted and the delay condoned; CAN 1 of 2025 was disposed of and the appeal taken up for final hearing.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The object of compassionate appointment is to provide succour to the dependents of the deceased and mitigate their financial hardship, and compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

Panchanan was a minor on the date of his father's death and was not eligible for consideration for compassionate appointment on that date; consequently no right accrued in his favour.ratio¶¶24
Since no right accrued in favour of Panchanan, there was no continuing wrong, and therefore Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh is distinguishable.ratio¶¶26
No recommendation of any authority was subsisting in favour of Panchanan, and therefore Gopal Mondal & Ors. has no manner of application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (MAT 1685 of 2025, with CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025) by Panchanan Sarkar against the order dated 20th May, 2025 of the learned single Judge dismissing WPA 9336 of 2025, whereby he had challenged the respondents' inaction to consider his claim for compassionate appointment. Facts: his father, a Head Teacher in a primary school, died in harness on 9th March, 1978 when Panchanan was a minor; his mother made representations in 1980 and 1983, and Panchanan applied in 1993 and 1994 upon attaining majority; an earlier writ petition was disposed of on 24th December, 1997 with a direction to consider the representations and pass a reasoned order, which was not complied with, leading to the 2025 writ petition. Held: (i) delay in preferring the appeal condoned and CAN 1 of 2025 disposed of; (ii) compassionate appointment is meant to succour the deceased's dependents and cannot be claimed as a matter of right; the appellant being a minor on the date of death was ineligible then, so no right accrued — hence no continuing wrong arose and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 is distinguishable; (iii) with no recommendation subsisting, Gopal Mondal & Ors. (2012) 2 CHN 705 has no manner of application; (iv) the learned single Judge rightly refused discretion and the impugned order calls for no interference. Result: appeal and connection application for stay dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

3 10.12.2025 Ct No.11 rrc

¶2

MAT 1685 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 and IA No. CAN 2 of 2025

¶3

(Panchanan Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

¶4

Mr. Kazi Ardan Ali

¶5

… For the appellant Mr. Nilay Baran Mandal

¶6

… For the State respondents

¶7

Mr. Avishek Prasad Mr. Sourodeep Singha

¶8

….. For the DPSC, Malda

¶9

The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 20^th May, 2025 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 9336 of 2025 which was preferred by the writ petitioner, namely, Panchanan Sarkar (in short, Panchanan) challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents to consider his claim for compassionate appointment.

¶10

The following the facts are not in dispute. Panchanan’s father was a Head Teacher in a primary school. He died in-harness on 9^th March, 1978. At that time, Panchanan’s mother, namely, Tarubala Sarkar (in short, Tarubala) submitted representations for grant of compassionate appointment to Panchanan on 5^th March, 1980 and again on 4^th March, 1983. Upon attaining majority, Panchanan

¶11

¶12

submitted applications for grant of compassionate appointment on 29^th December, 1993 and again on 8^th April, 1994. As the same were not considered, a writ petition was preferred which was disposed of by an order dated 24^th December, 1997 directing the authority concerned consider the representations and to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law. As the said order was not being complied with, Panchanan preferred a fresh writ petition in the year 2025 being WPA 9336 of 2025 which has been dismissed by the order impugned in the present appeal.

¶13

Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, we are satisfied with the explanation given towards delay in preferring the present appeal. Accordingly, such delay is condoned. The application being CAN 1 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of and the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

¶14

Mr. Ali, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the respondents failed to discharge their statutory obligation towards consideration and disposal of the representations submitted by Panchanan. The respondents simply maintained a deceptive silence. In view thereof, the delay, which had occurred is attributable to the

¶15

¶16

respondents and for their inaction, Panchanan cannot be made to suffer. Such argument, as advanced, was glossed over by the learned single Judge and no finding was returned on the same.

¶17

Placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , Mr. Ali submits that non-consideration of Panchanan’s application constitutes a continuing wrong. The learned single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition without considering such proposition of law, as urged.

¶18

He contends that there was no period prescribed towards submission of an application for compassionate appointment. Pursuant to the order dated 24^th December, 1997 passed in the earlier round of litigation, a hearing was conducted but no final order was passed. Panchanan’s claim for compassionate appointment was already in process when he attained majority and it could not have been abandoned midway. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Gopal Mondal & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2012) 2 CHN 705 .

¶19

Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that Panchanan’s father expired in the year 1978 when Panchanan was only 2

¶20

¶21

years old. Question of grant of any compassionate appointment cannot be considered at this stage after more than four decades.

¶22

Mr. Prasad, learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that admittedly Panchanan was a minor at the time of death of his father in the year 1978 and was not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment on the said date. It also cannot be urged that his claim continued to subsist indefinitely. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301 .

¶23

We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶24

The object of compassionate appointment is to provide succor to the dependent members of the deceased and to mitigate the financial hardships faced by them for the untimely death of their bread earner. It is also well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. On the date of death of his father, Panchanan was admittedly a minor and he was not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment on the said date. As no right accrued in favour of

¶25

¶26

Panchanan, it cannot be urged that there was any continuing wrong and as such the judgment delivered in the case of Union of India & Ors. (supra) is distinguishable. No recommendation of any authority was subsisting in favour of Panchanan and as such the judgment delivered in the case of Gopal Mondal & Ors. (supra) also has no manner of application .

¶27

In the said conspectus, the learned single Judge rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference in the present appeal.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal and the connection application for stay are dismissed.

¶29

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶30

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶31

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Panchanan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchanan Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanailal Barui Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kanailal Barui Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Hafizur Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Balaram Maiti Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Chairman West Bengal Central School Service Commission Vs Tapas Santra

Sultana Jinat Sabnam Vs the Registrar Wb Entrance Examination Board and Ors.