Calcutta High Court
WPA/25794/2026 of SAMIT JAMADAR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 22 September 2026
29 sdas WPA 25794 of 2026 Samit Jamadar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pritam Chowdhury Mr. Kapil Chandra Sahoo Mr. Tamal Taru Panda Mr. Satyajit Mahato Mr. Kartik Das ….. for the petitioner Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anujit Mookherji ….. for the State 1. The
22.09.2026
sdas
WPA 25794 of 2026
Samit Jamadar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Pritam Chowdhury
Mr. Kapil Chandra Sahoo
Mr. Tamal Taru Panda
Mr. Satyajit Mahato
Mr. Kartik Das
….. for the petitioner
Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anujit Mookherji
….. for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The affidavit of undertaking as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in its order dated September 11, 2026, has been filed and is kept on record.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated October 30, 2023, passed by the respondent no. 3, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on compassionated ground.
3. The petitioner is one of the sons of a former employee who died-in-harness sometime in the year, 2016.
4. The petitioner has three other brothers and a married sister. The other brothers, due to their terminal health concerns and age, are not within the zone of consideration for compassionate appointment. The mother of the petitioner has also expired sometime in the year, 2021.
5. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected taking into account the Rules specified in Emp.-251 dated December 3, 2013, as modified in Emp.-26 dated March 1, 2016. By such Rules, the authorities held that the petitioner’s income was in excess of the stipulated 90% of the last drawn salary of the aforestated employee.
6. Bereft of all other grounds, so much is true that the family is in financial penury and should be considered with a bit more compassion than is reflected in the order of rejection dated October 30, 2023. Without in any manner disturbing the said order of rejection, I direct the respondent no. 3 to reconsider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, since the family is in great financial hardship and requires some assistance.
7. Let this reconsideration be done within a period of eight weeks from date.
8. The resultant order will be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
9. I make it clear that this will not be treated as a precedent as the State has given its tacit consent to reconsider the matter on a request from the Court.
10. I also make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and the authorities will be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law and in compliance of the aforestated notifications.
11. The reconsideration will not create any equity or right in favour of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
12. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
13. There will be no order as to costs.
14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)