Disposed¶24

Piklu Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 Feb 2026WP.ST/22/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, W.P.S.T. 22 of 2026 (Madhuresh Prasad, J. & Prasenjit Biswas, J.), decided 06.02.2026: compassionate appointment; Lower Division Assistant (Group-C); Kolkata Police Directorate; Establishment Section; exempted category; confirmation; permanence; arrear dues; West Bengal Services (Appointment, Probation and Absorption of Group C Employees) Rules, 2013; Labour Department Notification No. 251Emp. dated 03.12.2013; non-functional West Bengal Administrative Tribunal; O.A. No. 620 of 2024; no direction issued; liberty to claim confirmation under the Rules; writ disposed of; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None of the prayed-for directions issued; petitioner left free to claim confirmation in terms of the Rule; no order as to costs. ¶24

Piklu Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the prayed-for directions issued; petitioner left free to claim confirmation in terms of the Rule; no order as to costs.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, appointed as Lower Division Assistant (Group-C) in the Kolkata Police Directorate on compassionate ground under the exempted category, is entitled to directions for confirmation/permanence and payment of arrears merely on lapse of time.

¶20

Court's answer

No provision was brought to the notice of the Court under which a mere lapse of time obliges confirmation of the petitioner in service; consequently, no right to confirmation was made out.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Since no case was made out by the applicant/petitioner and the governing provisions were pointed out, the Court did not find a case for issuance of any direction as sought for in the application.

¶22

Key takeaways

The petitioner is left free to claim her confirmation in terms of the governing Rule (the West Bengal Services (Appointment, Probation and Absorption of Group C Employees) Rules, 2013).ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointee as Lower Division Assistant (Group-C) in the Kolkata Police Directorate (appointment letter dated 08.01.2019 under the exempted category, stated to be in terms of Labour Department Notification No. 251Emp. dated 03.12.2013, following her husband's demise in harness in 2011) approached the Court because the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (O.A. No. 620 of 2024) was non-functional for want of a member, seeking permanence, confirmation and arrear dues. On repeated query, no case of a time-bound or unconditional right to confirmation was made out, and the learned A.G.P. pointed out that confirmation is governed by the West Bengal Services (Appointment, Probation and Absorption of Group C Employees) Rules, 2013, which prescribes prerequisites. Finding no provision under which mere lapse of time entails confirmation, the Court declined to issue any direction, left the petitioner free to claim confirmation in terms of the Rule, and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

Ct. No.4 D/L 06.02.2026 (Naba) 04

¶2

W.P.S.T. 22 of 2026

¶3

Piklu Roy Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal), Ms. Sarbani Dutta

¶6

...for the Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Tapas Kr. Mukherjee, ld. A.G.P., Ms. Tuli Sinha

¶8

...for the State Respondents

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.G.P.

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court after filing an O.A. before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (8Tribunal9 for short). The O.A. was registered as O.A. No. 620 of 2024. The Tribunal is non-functional on account of there being no member.

¶11

In view of such circumstance, the petitioner/applicant, claiming to be remediless, has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:

¶12

<(A) An order directing the respondent authorities to make the applicant permanent instead of the temporary appointment.

¶13

(a) An order directing the respondent authority to confirm the

¶14

¶15

service of the applicant as a Lower Division Assistant (Group-C) in Kolkata Police Directorate attached to Establishment Section, Kolkata Police Directorate under the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 5^th B.N. (KAP) at an early date from the date of her appointment as a Lower Division Assistant on compassionate ground under exempted category;

¶16

(b) An order directing the respondent authority to take necessary steps for approving the service of the petitioner as a Lower Division Assistant attached to the Establishment Section, Kolkata Police Directorate with effect from 2019 to take necessary steps; and

¶17

(c) An order directing the respondent authorities to approve the service of the applicant as a Lower Division Assistant and pay all arrear dues which was not paid till today.=

¶18

The brief background is that on account of demise of her husband in harness in the year 2011, the writ petitioner was given the appointment by a letter dated 08.01.2019, whereby and whereunder she was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant (Group-C) in the Kolkata Police Directorate on compassionate ground under the exempted category. The appointment is stated to be in terms of the Labour Department9s Notification No. 251Emp. dated 03.12.2013. The petitioner complains that despite lapse of so many years, she has not been confirmed.

¶19

¶20

On repeated query of the Court as to how she claimed such a right to confirmation and whether such confirmation is time bound or contingent upon satisfaction of any requirement such as passing of test etc., no such case is made out. There is no provision brought to the notice of the Court whereby and whereunder owing to a mere lapse of time, the petitioner is required to be confirmed in service.

¶21

The learned A.G.P. on the other hand submits that confirmation is governed by the West Bengal Services (Appointment, Probation and Absorption of Group C Employees) Rules, 2013. The same contains the procedure including the prerequisite for such confirmation which the petitioner is required to fulfil.

¶22

In view of no case being made out by the applicant/petitioner and the provisions having been pointed out, we do not find a case for issuance of any direction as sought for in the application.

¶23