FMA/495/2025 of MD. REJA TAHSIEN ANSARI Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 24 September 2026

1. The appeal arises out of an order dated February 6, 2025 passed in WPA 5092 of 2024.

2. By the order impugned, the learned Judge held that the appellant did not have any right to be appointed on compassionate ground, after his brother had relinquished his claim for appointment on July 16, 2021.

3. According to Her Lordship, the application of the appellant should be treated as a fresh application. The same was filed beyond the period of six months from the date when his father expired, and as such could not be accepted. Had the brother withdrawn his application within the period of limitation, that is, within six months from the date of death of the father and the application of the appellant was made within such time, the case would have been different.

4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court had excluded the period between March 15, 2020 to February 20, 2022, for the purpose of calculation of the period of limitation in all possible situations. Accordingly, the said order should be applied in case of the appellant and the delay in making the application should be condoned.

5. We are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Roy for on the following reasons :- (a) The father of the appellant died on October 24, 2019. Sometime in November 2019 the brother of the appellant applied for appointment on compassionate ground. His case was considered by the authorities and a proposal was sent for his appointment. Approval was accorded to the proposal for consideration of the application of the brother of the appellant for being appointed as a temporary MMR, on compassionate ground. Before the Government could issue the formal order, the appellant’s brother withdrew his candidature and sought for appointment of the appellant. His brother was successful in being appointed in a service under the government. The withdrawal was made long after the period of six months had expired. Such action was not contemplated under the scheme.

(b) Compassionate appointment is guided by the specific scheme and has to be strictly followed. The justification is that, compassionate appointment is a deviation from the general rule of appointment in public offices. It is an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

(c) Such appointment is given to permit the family to tide over immediate financial hardship on account of death of the bread earner.

(d) In the particular case, the scheme specifically provides that if a Mohammedan Registrar dies, his son, daughter or spouse, who lived with the deceased would be eligible for being considered for appointment as Mohammedan Registrar within that area. The intending heir must apply within six months from the date of death, to the Inspector General of Registration, West Bengal. The scheme does not provide that, if any of the dependents of the deceased Registrar is unable to accept such appointment, he may opt out, withdraw his candidature and allow his brother to stake the claim, all over again, ie, beyond the period stipulated under the scheme.

(e) Moreover, for being appointed on compassionate ground, consent of the other heirs and “no objections” from the other heirs are also necessary. We are not aware if such no-objection was obtained from the other heirs or whether there were other heirs as well.

(f) Most

importantly,

compassionate appointment is not a heritable right. It is neither a vested right nor a statutory right guaranteeing appointment to any dependent of a person who dies-in-harness.

(g) As we have held that the right of compassionate appointment is not a heritable right, the berth which the appellant’s brother had secured for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground could not have been transferred to the appellant.

6. Finally, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in suo motu Writ Petition 3 of 2020, will not apply to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the application of the brother was made within time. Hence, the issue of extension of the period of limitation after the application had been processed, cannot be raised by the appellant for consideration of his belated claim.

7. Her Lordship has already held that the appellant may apply in accordance with law, and his application may be considered in terms of the relevant rules.

8. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

9. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)