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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was a minor (about five years below the age of majority) on the date of his father's death in harness on 15.06.2008, was eligible for compassionate appointment, and whether the circulars dated 03.12.2013 and 01.03.2016 relied upon in the rejection order, having come into existence after the demise, could sustain the rejection. +2 more

Court's answer

The petitioner was ineligible for compassionate appointment on the date of his father's demise (15.06.2008), being about five years below the age of majority; no provision or circular existing as on that date was brought to the Court's notice under which a minor could make an application or was allowed to attain majority before making an application; therefore the plea that the circulars of 2013 and 2016, having come into existence much after the demise and without retrospective operation, render the rejection unsustainable is devoid of substance, and the reason assigned in the impugned rejection order does not require interference.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's challenge to the earlier rejection order dated 03.09.2021 was filed before the S.A.T. only in 2024, beyond the period of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Key takeaways

The Court found no infirmity in the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the S.A.T. in O.A. No. 284 of 2024.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — eligibility of minor son on date of employee-father's death in harness (15.06.2008), petitioner then aged 13 years 8 months 6 days; mother's application of 30.03.2012 rejected by order dated 03.09.2021 relying on circulars dated 03.12.2013 and 01.03.2016 — Held: petitioner was ineligible on the date of demise, being about five years below the age of majority; no circular existing as on 15.06.2008 permitted a minor to apply or to apply upon attaining majority; plea that the 2013 and 2016 circulars, post-dating the demise and lacking retrospective operation, cannot sustain the rejection held devoid of substance; second application made on 14.10.2021 after attaining majority; challenge to the rejection filed before the S.A.T. in 2024, beyond limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; no infirmity found in S.A.T. order dated 28.01.2025 in O.A. No. 284 of 2024; Writ Petition (W.P.S.T. No. 92 of 2025) dismissed. Bench: Madhuresh Prasad, J. and Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

Ct. No.4 D/L 01.07.2025 (Naba) 09

W.P.S.T. 92 of 2025

Subhrajyoti Saha Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Shibaji Kar Das, Ms. Sharmistha Das

...for the Petitioner

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. AGP, Ms. Sangeeta Roy

...for the State

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

The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner’s father died while in harness on 15.06.2008. An application, 04 (four) years thereafter, was made by his mother on 30.03.2012 seeking compassionate appointment in favour of the present petitioner. At the time of demise of his father, the petitioner was 13 years 8 months and 6 days old. Even at the time of making of application by his mother, he had not attained majority since his date of birth is 09.10.1994. The petitioner’s claim has, thus, been rejected by the authorities by an order dated 03.09.2021.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order insofar as he places reliance on circulars of 03.12.2013 and 01.03.2016 is unsustainable, the circulars having

2

come into existence much after demise of the petitioner’s father, having no retrospective operation. The petitioner, as soon as he attained majority, has again made an application.

Having considered the submissions, we find that the undisputed position being that the petitioner was ineligible for compassionate appointment on the date of demise of his father, since he was about five years below the age of majority. No provision has been brought to our notice that as on the date of demise of the petitioner’s father, i.e. 15.06.2008, there was any circular under which a minor could make an application, or that a minor was allowed to attain the age of majority before making an application. The plea of the petitioner’s learned counsel that the two circulars of 2013 and 2016 are inapplicable, therefore, is devoid of any substance. The reason assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the petitioner’s claim does not require any interference in our opinion.

We, further, find that a second application has been made by the petitioner on 14.10.2021. The records however reveal that an earlier order of rejection dated 03.09.2021 has been challenged by filing an application before the S.A.T. in 2024, beyond the period of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3

We find no infirmity in the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the S.A.T. in O.A. No. 284 of 2024.

The Writ Petition being W.P.S.T. No. 92 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)