Partly allowed¶25

Basanti Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Apr 2025MAT/1784/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment West Bengal; DPSC Nadia rejection orders 2006 and 2012; condonation of delay 69 days in MAT appeal; cost set aside in favour of DPSC Nadia; mother-daughter successive claims; WP 25772(w) of 2010; MAT 1030 of 2011 order dated 20.09.2011; learned Single Judge order upheld; appeal partly allowed; Soumen Sen J.; Smita Das De J.; decided 16.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 69 days in preferring the memorandum of appeal condoned (CAN 1 of 2024 disposed of); cost awarded in favour of DPSC, Nadia set aside; the learned Single Judge's order otherwise upheld; MAT 1784 of 2024 along with connected application CAN 2 of 2024 stands disposed of by common order. ¶25

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 69 days in preferring the memorandum of appeal should be condoned (CAN 1 of 2024). +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Sufficient cause having been shown, the delay of 69 days in preferring the memorandum of appeal is condoned and the prayer for condonation of delay is allowed; CAN 1 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition; the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment does not succeed on this appeal.

¶24

Key takeaways

The cost awarded in favour of DPSC, Nadia by the learned Single Judge is set aside, it being submitted on behalf of the appellant that a mistake was made in the writ petition owing to misunderstanding of the purport of the rejection order.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAT 1784 of 2024 (with CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2024), Basanti Biswas v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., decided 16.04.2025 by a Division Bench (Soumen Sen and Smita Das De, JJ.). CAN 1 of 2024: the delay of 69 days in preferring the memorandum of appeal was condoned upon sufficient cause being shown. By consent, the appeal and application were heard analogously and disposed of by a common order. Background: the appellant's father died in 2006; the mother's (Smt. Sujata Biswas) claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by order dated 15th May, 2006; her challenge in WP 25772(w) of 2010 was dismissed on 5th April, 2011, but the Division Bench in MAT 1030 of 2011 (order dated 20th September, 2011) set aside that dismissal and directed reconsideration; DPSC, Nadia nonetheless rejected the claim by the Chairman's order of 2012, citing the 2006 rejection; the daughter's writ petition of 2017 was dismissed with cost by the learned Single Judge, who also directed an enquiry whether the letter dated 5th April, 2014 referred to the mother. On appeal, the Division Bench upheld the learned Single Judge's order but set aside the cost awarded in favour of DPSC, Nadia, it having been submitted that a mistake was made in the writ petition owing to misunderstanding of the purport of the rejection order. The appeal succeeded in part; MAT 1784 of 2024 and CAN 2 of 2024 stand disposed of.

¶1

14 16.04.2025 KAUSHIK

¶2

MAT 1784 of 2024

¶3

(CAN 1 of 2024) (CAN 2 of 2024)

¶4

Basanti Biswas

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Sarwar Jahan Mr. Soumik Dey ... for the appellant.

¶8

Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay ... for the DPSC, Nadia.

¶9

Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaishya, AGP Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh Mr. M. K. Mondal

¶10

... for the State.

¶11

CAN 1 of 2024

¶12

This is an application for condonation of delay.

¶13

There is a delay of 69 days in preferring the memorandum of appeal.

¶14

Sufficient cause being shown for not being able to

¶15

file the instant memorandum of appeal within the time of limitation, the delay of 69 days in preferring the memorandum of appeal is condoned. The prayer for condonation of delay is allowed.

¶16

CAN 1 of 2024 is, thus, disposed of.

¶17

By consent of the parties, the appeal and

¶18

¶19

application are taken up for hearing analogously and are disposed of by a common order.

¶20

The petitioner appellant filed the writ petition in view of alleged prayer on the part of respondent authorities in giving her compassionate appointment. However, it transpired from hearing of the writ petition that the mother of the writ petitioner challenged an earlier rejection order passed by the competent authority in WP 25772(w) of 2010 in which the said order of rejection was challenged. The writ petition filed by the mother was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 5^th April, 2011.

¶21

On an appeal being carried out by the said order, the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 20^th September, 2011 in MAT 1030 of 2011 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the respondent to consider the prayer of the mother for compassionate appointment. Thereafter, DPSC, Nadia rejected the same stating that the mother’s claim was already rejected by an order dated 15^th May, 2006. The said order of 2012 passed by the Chairman, DPSC, Nadia was challenged in the writ petition filed by the daughter in the year 2017. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the inexplicable delay

¶22

¶23

on the part of the4 writ petitioner to challenge the decision applied the well-settled principal that compassionate employment is not a matter of right and not a regular source of employment and having regard to the fact that there is a considerable delay as the father of the petitioner has died in the year 2006 and the mother’s prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2006 albeit in the year 2012 dismissed the said application with cost. The reasoned order awarding cost appears to be that on the ground that the application of the petitioner was rejected on 15^th May, 2006. The learned Single Judge directed the Commission’s School Education to enquire as to whether the expression of the petitioner in the letter dated 5^th April, 2014 must deemed to be referring to the mother Smt. Sujata Biswas and not hers.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cause of misunderstanding of the purport of the said rejection order a mistake was made in the writ petition. On such consideration by upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, we set aside the cost awarded in favour of DPSC, Nadia.

¶25

In view of the above, the appeal succeeds in part.

¶26

MAT 1784 of 2024 along with connected

¶27

¶28

application being CAN 2 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶29

(Soumen Sen, J.)

¶30

(Smita Das De, J.)