Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied on Financial Grounds Absent Express Mention in Original Order: Calcutta High Court

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held that an authority may not rely on financial stringency to reject a claim for compassionate appointment unless that ground was expressly stated in the original rejection order or the enquiry committee report.

Jurisight Desk

Jul 4, 2026·4 min read

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner’s father was an employee of the West Bengal Transport Corporation who died while in service. Consequent to the demise, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment under the scheme notified by the State Government on 13 January 2011. An Enquiry Committee was constituted to examine the claim. The Committee recorded that the family of the deceased was in immediate need of financial assistance. Nevertheless, the Committee rejected the claim and recommended the grant of a one‑time financial assistance instead of appointment. The Managing Director of the Corporation thereafter issued a communication conveying the rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The Single Judge set aside the Enquiry Committee’s report and the Managing Director’s communication, holding that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment. The West Bengal Transport Corporation preferred an intra‑court appeal against that judgment.

Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Costs on Lawyer for Repeated Withdrawn Allegations

Arguments Advanced by the Parties

The appellant corporation contended that the notification dated 13 January 2011 expressly permits consideration of the organisation’s financial stringency while evaluating claims for compassionate appointment. It argued that, because the scheme allows such a factor to be taken into account, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the basis of financial constraints did not warrant judicial interference.

The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the Single Judge had correctly concluded that the claim was admissible. It submitted that the plea of financial stringency was unsustainable on the facts and that the Enquiry Committee had not relied on any financial ground when it rejected the claim.

Observations of the Division Bench

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas, began its analysis by perusing the Enquiry Committee’s report. The Court noted that the Committee had expressly found that the family of the deceased required immediate financial assistance. However, the report contained no reference to Clause 10 of the scheme, nor did it indicate that the financial condition of the West Bengal Transport Corporation was an impediment to granting compassionate appointment.

The Court further observed that the communication issued by the Managing Director also omitted any mention of financial stringency as a reason for rejection. Relying on the principle that an order under judicial scrutiny must be evaluated solely on the grounds stated therein, the Bench held that the authority could not be permitted to introduce new justifications by way of affidavit or subsequent submissions that were absent from the original document.

The Bench emphasised that, instead of granting the benefit of compassionate appointment, the Committee had recommended the award of one‑time financial assistance. The report did not even entertain a consideration with reference to paragraph 10 of the scheme, which deals with the financial capacity of the organisation. Consequently, there was no basis for the Committee to conclude that the corporation’s financial position prevented the appointment.

In addition, the Court referred to Clause 6 of the notification, which provides for one‑time financial assistance only when a suitable vacancy is not available within the organisation. The Bench recorded that there was no dispute regarding the non‑availability of a suitable vacancy. Moreover, it was noted that the Corporation had granted compassionate appointment to another individual in the year 2023, demonstrating that appointments under the scheme were being made despite any alleged financial constraints.

Taking these factors into account, the Division Bench concluded that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim could not be sustained on the ground of financial stringency when that ground was not articulated in the original order or the Enquiry Committee’s report. Accordingly, the Bench upheld the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the intra‑court appeal filed by the West Bengal Transport Corporation.

Implications of the Ruling

The decision clarifies the procedural safeguards applicable to compassionate appointment schemes. It affirms that an administrative authority must confine its reasoning to the grounds expressly mentioned in the order under challenge. Any attempt to rely on extraneous considerations, such as financial stringency, after the fact is impermissible. The ruling reinforces the principle of legality and protects claimants from post‑hoc justifications that undermine the transparency of the selection process.

By upholding the Single Judge’s order, the Calcutta High Court has also signalled that mere assertions of financial difficulty cannot override the entitlement of a dependent to compassionate appointment when the scheme’s conditions are satisfied and the original decision lacks a financial ground. The judgment is expected to influence similar disputes across other public sector organisations in West Bengal and may prompt a review of internal procedures to ensure that rejection orders contain all relevant considerations at the time of issuance.