Calcutta HC Rules No Compassionate Appointment After 13 Years Without any Financial Need

calcutta high court law insider in
calcutta high court law insider in

LI Network

Published on: 28 September 2023 at 11:50 IST

The Calcutta High Court has emphasized that compassionate appointments cannot be granted after a thirteen-year period following the death of an employee when there is no financial urgency.

In an application brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenged a decision made by the Chairman/Secretary of the District Primary School Council, Dakshin Dinajpur (referred to as ‘Chairman’), which had denied their request for a compassionate appointment for one of the petitioners.

Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, a single judge, stated, “The Chairman’s impugned order dated December 15, 2017, complies with the 2001 Rules, a Government Notification dated January 28, 2008, and is consistent with previous judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court. Compassionate appointments cannot be granted to the petitioners thirteen years after the father/employee’s death, especially when there is no financial urgency, and petitioner no.1 had applied for compassionate appointment beyond the two-year limitation period specified in the 2001 Rules.”

The Bench concluded that there was no reason to intervene in the Chairman’s decision.


The petitioner’s father, a Primary Teacher in Kochpara, passed away in service in 2010 when the petitioner was only 14 years old. An application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner’s mother upon the father’s death on December 1, 2011. However, the mother’s request was not acted upon. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the respondent authority for compassionate appointment on December 10, 2014.

The Chairman, through a memorandum, instructed the petitioner to provide all relevant documents related to the request for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner submitted the necessary documents on April 21, 2016, but the respondent authority took no action. She filed a writ petition before a co-ordinate bench of the High Court, which issued an order on November 1, 2017, directing the Chairman to consider her representation within six weeks.

The Chairman rejected the petitioner’s request on the grounds that the two-year period for seeking compassionate appointment had elapsed.

In response, the High Court stated, “… I am of the opinion that there is no need for intervention in the present case, and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.”

Consequently, the High Court declined to intervene in the matter and disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Ankita Saha & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Related Post