Calcutta High Court
WPA/15726/2026 of ISHTEYAQUE AHMAD Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 11 September 2026
5 sdas WPA 15726 of 2026 Ishteyaque Ahmad Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ayan Mitra ….. for the petitioner Mr. Subit Majumdar Ms. Debasmita Ganguly ….. for the State 1. Even though there is no affidavit- of -service, State is represented. 2. This is an application by
11.09.2026
sdas
WPA 15726 of 2026
Ishteyaque Ahmad
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ayan Mitra
….. for the petitioner
Mr. Subit Majumdar
Ms. Debasmita Ganguly
….. 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. Even though there is no affidavit-of-service, State is represented.
2. This is an application by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. The surrounding facts are somewhat strange. The petitioner’s father was an employee with the Public Works Department who went missing on May 3, 2009. There is a report by the concerned Deputy Commissioner on March 4, 2013, stating that the said employee cannot be traced.
3. Merely as the employee cannot be traced will not raise a presumption that he has expired. The petitioner ought to have obtained a declaration from the jurisdictional civil court regarding the death of his father.
4. Further the petitioner’s father had service of three months left prior to his retirement, at the time when he went missing. Clearly the petitioner would be barred under Clause 13(b)(i) of Notification No. Emp.
251 dated December 3, 2013, whereby the benefit of compassionate appointment can only be given to the Government servants having a balance service in excess of five years on the date of his death or incapability to serve.
5. Since the petitioner’s father had a period of three months, the petitioner’s case has been rejected on August 18, 2025.
6. I do not find any reason to interfere with such order.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is, thus, dismissed.
8. There will be no order as to costs.
9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)