Calcutta High Court

WPA/15726/2026 of ISHTEYAQUE AHMAD Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 11 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

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

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

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.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead