The Calcutta High Court affirms that compassionate appointment is a policy-based concession, not a right, and cannot be granted across multiple generations—binding on subordinate courts and persuasive for other High Courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/17305/2025 of NADIRAH KAMAL Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0351922025 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing policy-based doctrine on compassionate appointment |
| Type of Law | Service/Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether compassionate appointment can be granted repeatedly to multiple generations under the relevant policy? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that compassionate appointment is purely policy-driven and not a statutory or fundamental right.
- Clarifies that once granted to one family member, a policy does not permit a second or further compassionate appointment to descendants.
- Affirms that service concessions cannot be used to generate or distribute employment across generations.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by observing that compassionate appointment is a concession, not an entitlement, and depends entirely on the terms of the governing policy.
- It noted that no policy provision allows repeated appointments for members of the same family.
- By extending compassionate appointment to multiple generations, employment would effectively be “generated” and “distributed,” contrary to the policy’s intent.
- Applying these settled principles, the court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Applied for compassionate appointment following the mother’s death while in service.
State (Respondent)
- Submitted that the relevant policy does not permit repeated compassionate appointments.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s father, employed as a Junior Librarian Attendant at the District Library Office, Uttar Dinajpur, died on March 5, 2006. The petitioner’s mother, as his widow, was granted a compassionate appointment in 2010. She passed away in employment on May 24, 2024. The petitioner filed for a fresh compassionate appointment on June 5, 2025, which was opposed by the State on the ground that repeated appointments are not authorized by policy.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing policy-based law on compassionate appointment is reaffirmed and applied.