Calcutta High Court Dismisses Compassionate Appointment Plea | Eligibility Alone Not Enough Without Proof Of Financial Hardship | Strict Compliance With Policy Is Mandatory
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment request. A presided over by Justice Gaurang Kanth delivered the judgment on 6 May 2025, after reserving it on 1 May 2025. The petition concerned the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's decision to deny a compassionate appointment on grounds of ineligibility under financial hardship criteria defined in the service regulations. The court found that the petitioner had failed to substantiate the claim of financial indigency as mandated under DMC (Personnel) Circular No. 47/VIII/2008-09 dated 17.01.2009.
The petitioner, Sambrita Ganguly, approached the court assailing the impugned order dated 12 July 2024 issued by the Chief Manager (Personnel), Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), rejecting her application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner is the daughter of the late Mr. Snehangshu Sekhar Ganguly, who was employed as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the CME (Civil) Department of KMC. He passed away on 18 June 2019 following a cardiac arrest. The petitioner and her mother are his only surviving legal heirs.
The deceased's retirement benefits and family pension were sanctioned in favour of his widow. The petitioner, who was divorced on 8 November 2017, submitted that she was wholly dependent on her father at the time of his death. She applied for compassionate appointment on 27 September 2019. Her mother submitted an affidavit of no objection and the petitioner undertook to care for her mother.
The application was first rejected via a resolution passed in the 127th Meeting of the Special Regulation Committee held on 29 November 2022, citing Clause 2B of the extant Special Regulations. This rejection was set aside by the Calcutta High Court in W.P.O. No. 24 of 2024. The court, relying on State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Purnima Das & Ors. and Payel Bhattacharya vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., directed reconsideration without excluding the petitioner on the basis of her marital status.
Following a hearing, the application was again rejected by KMC via an order dated 12 July 2024, prompting the present writ petition.
Petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment as a divorced and financially dependent daughter on the date of her father's demise. The subsequent remarriage in October 2022, it was submitted, was irrelevant to the determination of eligibility. Reliance was placed on DMC Circular dated 17.01.2009, arguing that the family income post-death did not exceed 90% of the deceased's gross salary, thereby meeting the condition of financial distress. Counsel further invoked the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, to argue that decisions must be judged on contemporaneous reasoning.
The respondents argued that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and must be granted strictly per applicable rules. Citing Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653, they contended that the petitioner's failure to provide evidence demonstrating financial distress warranted rejection. The KMC asserted that retiral dues amounting to Rs. 11,14,367 were disbursed to the widow and she receives a monthly pension of Rs. 47,468. The estimated interest income from the retiral benefits further raised the total monthly income, disqualifying the family under the circular.
The court held that compassionate appointment is a "humanitarian measure aimed at providing immediate financial relief" and is not a matter of right. The Bench noted, "Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general recruitment rules and is subject to the policies in place at the time of the employee's death." It recorded that the applicable circular required proof that the family income fell below 90% of the gross salary drawn by the deceased employee.
Justice Kanth stated, "The eligibility of the Petitioner to apply for compassionate appointment is not under challenge by the Respondent. The dispute, however, canters around the question of whether the Petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment under the terms and conditions laid down in DMC (P)’s Circular No. 47/VIII/2008-09 dated 17.01.2009."
The Bench agreed that the remarriage of the petitioner was irrelevant for determining eligibility as the financial condition must be assessed immediately after the employee's demise. However, the court found that the petitioner had not submitted documents to establish the monthly family income or to counter KMC's calculation. The judgment recorded: "The Respondent has furnished a calculation indicating that an amount of Rs. 11,14,367/- was received by the widow... and that she receives a monthly pension of Rs. 47,468/-." It added that the interest income was approximately Rs. 7,429, amounting to a monthly family income of Rs. 54,897.
Further, it was observed, "Despite repeated requests, the Petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to disprove this calculation or to demonstrate that the family had no other source of income." The court noted that the petitioner was an educated individual who had mentioned "service" as her occupation in her divorce documents, raising doubts about her dependency.
The judgment stated: "The failure to produce relevant and material documents, including income proof, bank statements, and details of movable and immovable properties, weakens the Petitioner’s claim." It concluded that the petitioner had not established the requisite financial hardship.
The court held: "Although the Petitioner was eligible to apply for compassionate appointment as the daughter of the deceased employee, she has failed to establish that the family of the deceased was in a state of financial hardship immediately after his demise, as required under DMC (P)’s Circular No. 47/VIII/2008-09 dated 17.01.2009."
The Court held that compassionate appointment must be granted strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed under the relevant service rules and cannot be sustained on equitable grounds alone in the absence of qualifying financial criteria.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, Mr. Arijit Dey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Joydeep Kar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Swapan Kumar Debnath, Advocate, Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Advocate
Case Title: Sambrita Ganguly vs. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.O. 1020 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gaurang Kanth
[Read/Download order]
