Mousumi Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

The writ petitioner is in fourth round of legal bout, in claiming for her compassionate appointment, due to death of her predecessor/ father, while in service. The petitioner has challenged the fourth order of rejection of her such prayer by the respondent authority, Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal dated January 04, 2018.

Father of the petitioner was working as a Class-IV staff under the 3^rd respondent that is, Chairman of West Bengal Central School Service Commission. While on employment, the said person died on March 30, 2012, leaving behind his widow, a son and the present petitioner/daughter, who was then a married person. The mother and brother of the petitioner have voluntarily relinquished their claims with respect to compassionate appointment in place of their deceased predecessor. The petitioner, who by then has developed serious discord in her matrimony, left her marital home, returned back to her paternal home and was entirely dependent on her father.

After death of her father, the petitioner has submitted her application for compassionate appointment along with all relevant documents to the 4^th respondent that is, the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DI’) on July 11, 2012.

Such prayer of the petitioner has been rejected for the first time vide order dated September 24, 2012, issued by the 4^th respondent inter alia on the ground that the petitioner being a married lady, would not be eligible for such appointment on compassionate ground due to death of her father, as only an unemployed and unmarried daughter of a deceased person is to be considered as a dependent, eligible family member of the deceased person, for any such appointment.

Vide letter dated August 11, 2014, the 4^th respondent has for the second time rejected the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has got no financial hardship at that moment and hence, she was not entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground due to death of her father.

Vide letter dated January 17, 2018 the Chairman, West Bengal Central School Service Commission rejected for 3^rd time the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment on the basis of the reasons cited by the Commissioner of School Education in his letter dated January 04, 2018, inter alia that, the petitioner and her family receive family pension, the petitioner also receives maintenance from her husband and her brother works in CRPF that is, an authority under the Central Government; hence, in case of the petitioner or her family, financial hardship was not proved in accordance with law.

Hence, this writ petition, fourth in line, has been filed by the petitioner seeking the relief of appointment on compassionate ground and challenging the impugned order dated January 04, 2018 of the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal; also seeking setting aside thereof.

Mr. Ujjal Ray, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner. He submits that though it is the requirement to assess the financial hardship of the incumbent’s family by the authority, before her prayer for compassionate appointment can be favourably considered by the said authority, in case of the present petitioner the respondent authority, in the said impugned order dated January 04, 2018, has taken into consideration extraneous circumstances and facts and at the same time failed to take into consideration the most relevant and vital fact revealed before it during the fact-finding enquiry. Therefore, according to Mr. Ray, learned advocate the order of rejection by the said respondent authority of the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment, is a result of not only non-application of mind by the respondent but also gross arbitrariness and unreasonableness, which has rendered the said order as a nugatory one.

Mr. Ray, learned advocate has taken the Court to the impugned order to submit that the two very important components comprising family income have been erroneously considered by the said respondent authority in the impugned order, rendering the basis of calculation of family income of the petitioner erroneous by itself. Therefore, on the basis of such erroneous calculation of the family income of the petitioner, only an erroneous finding as regards no financial hardship of the family and no eligibility of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was but only natural and the respondent authority has allowed itself to fall within the trap of such an obvious error.

It is firstly submitted that, employment of the brother of the petitioner with CRPF, that is a Central Government agency, is an admitted fact in the instant case. However, what the respondent authority has failed or ignored to consider is that the brother no more consists within the family of the petitioner. It is submitted that the brother lives elsewhere with his own family and has in writing declared before the authority his intentions not to take any burden of his widow mother or the petitioner. In this regard, the brother has submitted a written statement before the authority, which according to Mr. Ray, has not been taken into consideration by the authority. His submission is that, considering the brother’s mental and financial support, in maintenance of the petitioner or her dependent old and ailing mother, is only a gross error on part of the respondent authority, in the teeth of the written statement submitted by the brother before the authority.

It is thereafter stated that the respondent has again erroneously considered the amount of income from other sources of the family consisting of the petitioner and her mother to be Rs. 26,000/- per annum. According to the petitioner, which she has submitted on affidavit, the monthly income from other sources can hardly be considered to be Rs. 2,000/- per annum.

The further submission of the petitioner is that, in accordance with the applicable Rules, that is West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the post of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2009, dearness relief and medical allowance are excluded to be considered as criteria while assessing the financial hardship of the family. Mr. Ray has categorically submitted that, in the impugned order, the respondent authority has made further error in incorporating the dearness relief and medical allowance to assess the total family pension amount, which the family receives on account of death of the erstwhile Group-D employee.

So far as eligibility of the writ petitioner for employment on compassionate ground in place of her deceased father the petitioner has relied on the following judgments and orders of the Court: -

ii) The State of West Bengal & Ors. versus Purnima Das reported at 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 13121

iii) Bitasoke Mahata versus The State of West Bengal in MAT 1664 of 2023 dated January 17, 2024

iv) Arunava Jana & Anr. versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. in WPA 7036 of 2019 dated January 09, 2026

Ms. Debasmita Ganguly, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent authority. She has relied upon the written instructions submitted to her by the respondent/District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly dated August 06, 2026. According to the State, the calculations made to assess the financial hardship of the family of the petitioner in the said impugned order are worth reiteration and the authority has relied on the same. The authority has further relied on the fact of service of the brother of the petitioner, under the Government of India. Therefore, the authority has finally contended that petitioner’s prayer for grant of appointment on compassionate ground cannot be recommended under died in harness category for the reason that the financial hardship of the family having assessed in accordance with law would not be proved to such an extent that duly qualifies for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to a member of such family of the deceased employee. The respondent authority has categorically submitted that total family income of the petitioner as per statutory financial criteria is more than the gross salary of a Group-D employee at the material point of time.

So far question of eligibility or otherwise of a married daughter of deceased employee in case of compassionate appointment is concerned, the respondent State has not raised any dispute or denial in the instant writ petition. Still the Court wishes to materialise the opportunity to discuss about the cases of Sayara Khatoon (supra) of the Supreme Court as well as Purnima Das (supra) of the Larger Bench of this Court, in few words. In Sayara Khatoon (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically held that any classification differentiating a daughter from a son is per se unconstitutional, similar is with regard to a policy differentiating a married and an unmarried or divorced or deserted daughter. The Court holds that, there cannot be a presumption in law that, after marriage, a daughter severs her ties with her paternal family altogether. The Court further holds that it is for subjective satisfaction of the Court adjudicating the matter as regards the extent of dependence of the daughter irrespective of her being married or not, upon her parent, who has died during his service period. Similar proposition has been settled by the Hon’ble Larger Bench of this Court in Purnima Das’s case (supra) accepting therein the right of a married daughter, in an appropriate case to compassionate appointment.

The provisions under Rule, 2009 lays down the manner of selection on compassionate ground. The provision lays down that for ascertaining financial hardship in relation to income of a deceased teacher or non-teaching staff consisting up to five members in the family shall mean an amount of income less than the initial gross salary of Group-D staff of the State Government at the material point of time. For computation of income of such family, income of any amount earned by each family member from any other sources than Provident Fund, Gratuity and 40% of Family Pension of the first seven years or upon the attainment of 67 years of age of the deceased teacher had he been alive, whichever is earlier, at the material point of time, shall be taken into account. For the purpose of calculation of family income of the incumbent the components like dearness allowance, interim relief or medical allowance who stand excluded. Such proposition is settled well in the judgments cited by the petitioner in cases of Bitasoke Mahata (supra) and Arunava Jana (supra).

There are two aspects alleged to have been erroneously held in the impugned order passed by the respondent/Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal. Firstly, that while calculating the amount of family pension acceptable for determination of financial hardship of the family, the respondent has taken into consideration the dearness relief and medical relief, which are actually the excluded parameters as per law, for calculation of acceptable amount of family pension. From the judgments of Bitasoke Mahata (supra) and Arunava Jana (supra) sufficient support can be found as to the proposition of law as stated above. Therefore, the Court can undoubtedly come to a conclusion in the instant case that the respondent has calculated the acceptable amount of family pension on erroneous basis and considering wrongful components of pension. This renders the calculation arrived at by the respondent in assessing the family income and financial hardship of the petitioner as unsustainable.

Second is, that regarding the income of brother of the petitioner. A brother who has segregated himself from the mother and sister and declared in writing by submitting written statement about his desire not to take any responsibility of his mother and sister, who have been earlier dependents of the deceased father, cannot any further be considered as a member of a common family unit with the present petitioner. There is no reason either available or cited and relied on by the respondent authority for it not to consider and take into account the declaration made by the brother in written statement filed before it. Therefore, for all practical purposes, income of the brother could not have been taken into account while assessing the family income of the petitioner and the unit consisting the petitioner and her mother constitute a separate family unit, than that of the brother of the petitioner. It is relevant to consider that the brother of the petitioner permanently resides elsewhere and has asserted his ‘no objection’, in case the petitioner is appointed on compassionate ground.

Evidently, neither of this fact has been duly or at all assessed by the respondent authority in the impugned order nor any reason has been shown by it therein, not to accept the declaration made by the brother himself.

The error as apparent on the face of the impugned order dated January 04, 2018 passed by Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal as discussed above, has rendered the said order as not maintainable.

It is noted that for years together either on one plea or the other the respondent authority has so far tried to shrug off the responsibility of duly and favourably considering the writ petitioner’s prayer for grant of compassionate appointment. On the other hand, the Court finds that in view of dependence of the petitioner on his father at the time of his death, which fact has never been disputed in the instant writ petition, the petitioner should have been found eligible for grant of compassionate appointment. Rest remains the issue of assessment of financial hardship in terms of Rules, of the family of the petitioner. Here also, the undisputed fact is that the brother no more consists in the same family with the petitioner and has expressed his ‘no objection’ in case of grant of compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner. It further is noted that the impugned order is also erroneous in calculating the prohibited components of monthly pension received by the widow of the deceased person, in assessing the monthly income of the family, for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment, to a member thereof.

All these, prompt this Court to find it prudent to direct the respondent authority for re-assessment of the monthly income of the family of the present petitioner, consisting of herself and her mother and taking due care of both the acceptable and sparable considerations in accordance with law, while calculating family income, as on the date of death of the person. The written statement submitted by the brother before the authority shall also be considered.

Consideration of the petitioner’s prayer in the manner as directed above shall be done and concluded by the 4^th respondent/the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. In doing so, the respondent authority as above may also afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner if it thinks so fit and proper. The respondent shall issue a reasoned order, in case it again finds the petitioner’s prayer as not maintainable for whatsoever ground. Needless is to mention that otherwise immediate necessary steps shall be taken by the 4^th and 5^th respondent respectively, for appointment of the writ petitioner.

With the direction as above, the present writ petition stands disposed of along with applications pending, if any.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.