WPA/28776/2016 of SOUMYADEEP PAUL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS on 31 July 2026

1. The petitioner challenges the order of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), South 24 Parganas dated July 22, 2016 (Annexure P11, p.45) rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that the monthly family income of the petitioner is greater than the income of a Group-D staff of the State at the material point of time.

2. For the purpose of arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the DI of Schools has relied upon Schedule V of School Education Department’s Notification No. 697-ES/S/IS-18/08 dated July 9, 2009 wherein the expression ‘financial hardship’ has been explained.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court on October 28, 2005 in WPA No.23428 of 2018 with IA No.CANs 1 & 2 of 2021 (Subhrajyoti Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein the Court took into consideration the aforesaid Schedule and was of the opinion that the family pension should not be taken into account at the time of assessing the financial condition of the family for providing compassionate appointment.

4. The Court, in Subhrajyoti Mondal’s case (supra), also took note of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC 493 wherein the Court held that family benefit scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment.

5. The Court in Subhrajyoti Mondal’s case (supra) also took note of the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Bina Debnath reported in 2009(2) CLJ 512 which held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to families in genuine financial distress and not to consider statutory benefits like family pension as income.

6. In the instant case, the DI of Schools has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for grant of compassionate appointment only relying upon the monthly family income of the petitioner upon addition of the pension received by the mother of the petitioner. If the pension is deducted from the family income that has been calculated, then the income of the family will fall far below the income of a Group-D staff of the State Government.

7. In view of the law laid down by the Court in the precedents referred to hereinabove, the Court is of the opinion that it was not proper for the DI of Schools to take into consideration the family pension received by the mother of the petitioner at the time of calculating the family income of the petitioner.

8. Therefore, the reasoning given by the DI of Schools for rejecting the case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment cannot be accepted by the Court. The impugned order passed by the DI of Schools dated July 22, 2016 is, accordingly, set aside.

9. The DI of Schools is directed to revisit the issue all over again and take a decision on the petitioner’s prayer for grant of compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with law at the earliest but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

10. If the petitioner satisfies the condition for grant of compassionate appointment, then necessary consequential steps shall be taken without any further delay.

11. The DI of Schools shall keep in mind that the petitioner’s father died-in-harness way back on December 8, 2012, and immediately thereafter the application for compassionate appointment was made. The issue ought not to be kept pending any further.

12. The DI of Schools shall strictly abide by the timeline as mentioned hereinabove and not delay in considering the petitioner’s prayer.

13. The writ petition stands disposed of.

14. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

15. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J]