Dismissed¶22

Md. Imran Khan v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Compassionate appointment – Delay of nearly 12 years in applying after employee's death in harness

Calcutta HC17 Jun 2025WP.ST/100/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.S.T. 100 of 2025 (17.06.2025): writ petition by Md. Imran Khan against State of West Bengal challenging Tribunal order refusing compassionate appointment; father died in harness 25.09.1988, application made 25.02.2010 (about 12 years late; majority attained 2008); compassionate appointment is an exception requiring diligent, immediate application within scheme's time limit; Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar, (2006) 9 SCC 195 distinguished (application there was in time though made as minor); Tribunal order upheld; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the Tribunal's order stands. ¶22

Md. Imran Khan Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the Tribunal's order stands.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is sustainable, given that the application was made nearly 12 years after the death of his father (who died in harness on 25.09.1988), the petitioner having stated he applied only after attaining majority in 2008. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is not sustainable: the timeline shows the application was made nearly 12 years after the employee's death, whereas such an application must be made diligently and immediately after the death, in accordance with the scheme including its time limit.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the Rule, intended to provide succour to the family of a government servant on account of sudden loss of the bread earner; consequently, an applicant must scrupulously observe the requirements of the scheme, including the time limit for making the application.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Apex Court judgment in Syed Khadim Hussain does not apply to this case: there the application was within time even though made while the applicant was a minor, whereas here the application was made in 2010, about a decade later than required under the scheme, although majority was attained in 2008; the petitioner therefore cannot derive any subsistence from that judgment.ratio¶19
The Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — Delay of nearly 12 years in applying after employee's death in harness — Claim not sustainable. Petitioner's father died on 25.09.1988 while in harness; application for compassionate appointment was made on 25.02.2010, the petitioner stating he applied only after attaining majority in 2008. Held: compassionate appointment is an exception to the Rule meant to provide succour to the family on sudden loss of the bread earner, and the applicant must scrupulously observe the scheme's requirements, including the time limit; an application made about a decade late does not qualify. The Apex Court decision in Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 195, relied on by the petitioner, was distinguished as inapplicable, since there the application was within time though made during minority. Finding no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, the writ petition was dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.)

¶1

17.06.2025 (D/L-13) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)

¶2

W.P.S.T. 100 of 2025

¶3

Md. Imran Khan Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar

¶6

...for the Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP, Mr. Somnath Naskar

¶8

...for the State Respondents

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

¶10

The facts lie in a very narrow compass. Father of the petitioner died on 25.09.1988, while in harness. An application for compassionate appointment has been submitted by the petitioner on 25.02.2010, nearly 12 years thereafter. The reason assigned for giving such application after 12 years has been stated in so many words by the petitioner in his Original Application that he had made the application only after he attained majority in 2008.

¶11

The timeline emerging from these facts makes it clear that the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is not sustainable. The concept of compassionate appointment is by now well established. The application has to be made diligently and immediately after the death of the employee in

¶12

¶13

harness. The law is by now well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the Rule and is intended to provide succour to the family of a government servant on account of sudden loss of the bread earner. Having regard to such nature of appointment it has repeatedly been held that a person desirous of consideration for compassionate appointment is required to scrupulously observe the requirement under the scheme, including the time limit for making of an application.

¶14

Learned counsel submits that the Apex Court in the

¶15

case of Syed Khadim Hussain –Vs.- State of Bihar

¶16

and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 195 has allowed the claim of the petitioner therein even though the petitioner had attained majority later than the time specified for making an application for compassionate appointment.

¶17

The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case. In the judgment the Apex Court has taken note of the fact that application therein was within time, even though it was made at the time when the petitioner was a minor. Facts are essentially different in the present case where an application for compassionate appointment has been made by the petitioner in the year 2010, though he claims to have attained majority

¶18

¶19

in the year 2008; and his father had passed away in 1998. The petitioner had made an application about a decade later than required under the scheme. Petitioner, therefore, cannot derive any subsistence from the judgment relied upon.

¶20

We do not find any reason to interfere with the order

¶21

passed by the Tribunal.

¶22

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶23

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶24

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Md. Imran Khan v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Imran Khan v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Pradip Kumar Chakraborty Alias Chakrabarti

Khalil and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kamal Howlader Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Deepali Purakayastha & Ors. Vs U.O.I. & Ors.

Debasish Bhattacharya Vs Union of India & Ors.