The Calcutta High Court bench, led by Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, ruled that if a government employee passes away a day before turning 60, they are considered not to have reached the age of 60. As a result, their dependent qualifies for compassionate appointment.

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment in a secondary school following his father's demise. His father, born on January 2, 1961, was set to turn sixty on January 1, 2021—the day he passed away. The respondent denied the petitioner's request, citing in a memo dated February 5, 2024, that the father had already attained the age of sixty at the time of his death.

The respondent, relying on Schedule V of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2009, concluded that the petitioner's father had attained the age of sixty on the date of his death. Consequently, the petitioner was deemed ineligible for compassionate appointment.

Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the memo dated February 5, 2024, issued by the Assistant Secretary of the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission.

The petitioner argued that since his father was born on January 2, 1961, he had not yet completed sixty years of age on January 1, 2021, the day he passed away. He would have turned sixty on January 2, 2021. It was further contended that, irrespective of his father’s superannuation date, the petitioner should have been considered eligible for compassionate appointment.

Since his father was one day short of completing sixty years at the time of his death, the petitioner claimed entitlement to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds.

The petitioner further relied on Rules 18 and 20 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016. As per Rule 18, his father’s superannuation date was January 31, 2021. Additionally, the petitioner submitted that Rule 20 emphasizes considering the financial hardship of the deceased teacher’s family and defines "family" in accordance with Schedule V of the 2009 Rules.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the 2016 Rules were not applicable in this case and that the petitioner’s eligibility for compassionate appointment should be determined solely based on Schedule V of the 2009 Rules. Clause 1 of Schedule V of the 2009 Rules stated that the petitioner's father’s superannuation date was fixed as January 31, 2021.

However, since he had attained the age of sixty on January 1, 2021, the petitioner was deemed ineligible for compassionate appointment. The respondent authorities maintained that, with the father’s date of birth being January 2, 1961, he had completed sixty years on January 1, 2021, thereby disqualifying the petitioner from consideration.

The court relied on Clause 1 of Schedule V of the 2009 Rules, which stipulates that a teacher or non-teaching staff member’s family is eligible for compassionate appointment only if the deceased passed away while in service, before reaching the superannuation age of sixty years.

The court observed that the petitioner's father was scheduled to retire on January 31, 2021, but he passed away on January 1, 2021, at the age of 59 years, 11 months, and 29 days. Had he passed away on January 2, 2021, it could have been concluded that he had completed sixty years of age.

The court further observed that if the petitioner's father had passed away on January 2, 2021, the petitioner would have been ineligible for compassionate appointment. However, since his father died on the last day of his 60th year, it could not be concluded that he had completed sixty years of age.

The court held that there was no bar in considering the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment since his father passed away just before completing sixty years of age. Consequently, the memo dated February 5, 2024, issued by the respondent was set aside.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Details:
Case Name: Sk. Monikul Hossain v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.A. 28275 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner: Firdous Samim, Gopa Biswas, Sampriti Saha, Swati Dey
Counsel for the Respondents: Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Biman Halder, Sunit Kumar Roy, Saibal Acharyya, Tanweer Jamil Mandal