Calcutta HC Division Bench Upholds Compassionate Appointment Order Against West Bengal Transport Corporation

The Calcutta High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal by West Bengal Transport Corporation, holding that financial stringency cannot be urged for the first time in a writ affidavit when the enquiry committee's own report found the deceased's family in need.

A Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas, dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by West Bengal Transport Corporation Ltd against a Single Judge order that had directed compassionate appointment of Dipankar Banik. The appeal, registered as APO/38/2025 arising from WPO/531/2021, turned on whether the Corporation could resist the claim by invoking financial stringency under Clause 10 of a scheme notification dated 13 January 2011. The Division Bench found that the enquiry committee's own report, dated 11 December 2020, had expressly recorded that the family of the deceased employee was in need of immediate financial assistance — and had never cited the Corporation's financial condition as a ground for rejection. That discrepancy proved fatal to the appeal.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

Dipankar Banik, the respondent and writ petitioner, sought compassionate appointment following his father's death. His claim was examined by an Enquiry Committee, which submitted a report on 11 December 2020. The committee found, on a review of the scheme notification dated 13 January 2011 and the materials placed before it, that the petitioner had been residing with his deceased father Dilip Banik, and that after accounting for the death benefit, interest, pension, and the petitioner's own income, the family of the deceased was in need of immediate financial assistance.

Despite reaching that factual conclusion, the committee declined to recommend compassionate appointment. It pointed instead to an administrative backlog: the last appointment on compassionate ground had been made in 2014 on a contractual basis pursuant to a High Court order; appointments were now routed through agencies under government orders; and earlier recommendations by previous enquiry committees were still pending. The committee then recommended a one-time financial assistance under Clause 6 of the notification in lieu of appointment.

The Managing Director of the Corporation, by communication dated 3 February 2021, rejected Banik's claim on that basis. Banik challenged the committee report and the Managing Director's communication before a Single Judge of the High Court. By judgment dated 23 May 2025, the Single Judge set aside both the report and the communication, held Banik eligible for compassionate appointment, and directed accordingly. The Corporation filed the present intra-court appeal against that judgment.

The Issue Framed

The Division Bench had framed a precise issue in an earlier order dated 26 February 2026: whether, under the compassionate appointment scheme contained in the notification dated 13 January 2011, the Corporation's plea of financial stringency could sustain the rejection of Banik's claim.

Counsel for the Corporation pointed to Clause 10 of the notification, which reads that State Transport Undertakings “have to keep an eye strictly on actual requirement and financial capability of the organization in case of appointment on compassionate ground.” The argument was that the scheme itself permitted the Corporation to factor in its financial capability, and that the Single Judge should not have interfered with that exercise of discretion.

Counsel for Banik countered that the Single Judge had examined both the scheme and the committee report before finding the claim admissible, and that the financial stringency plea was not sustainable on the facts.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench undertook its own examination of the committee report dated 11 December 2020. It found that the committee had, in terms, concluded that the family of the deceased was in need of immediate financial assistance. That conclusion was recorded expressly in the report. The committee's refusal to recommend appointment rested entirely on administrative and logistical grounds — the routing of new appointments through agencies, and the queue of pending recommendations — not on any assessment that the Corporation's finances made appointment impossible.

Paragraph 10 of the notification, which the Corporation relied upon in the writ proceedings, was not mentioned anywhere in the committee report. Nor did the Managing Director's communication of 3 February 2021 refer to financial stringency or paragraph 10 of the scheme. The Division Bench held that in a writ proceeding, an authority cannot be permitted to supplement the order under challenge, or to urge new grounds by way of an affidavit, if those grounds do not appear in the document falling for consideration. On that basis alone, the financial stringency plea was found unsustainable.

The bench also examined Clause 6 of the notification, which permits grant of one-time financial assistance to the dependent seeking compassionate appointment, but only if a suitable vacancy is not found in the organisation. The committee's own report and the Corporation's conduct before the court made clear that vacancies did exist. The Corporation had itself granted a compassionate appointment in the year 2023, and there was no dispute before the bench that vacancies were available. The attempt by counsel for the Corporation to distinguish the 2023 appointment — on the ground that it was made to comply with an earlier court order — was rejected as raising an unsustainable plea that did not meaningfully differentiate that appointment from Banik's claim.

Since the condition precedent for substituting one-time financial assistance under Clause 6 (non-availability of a suitable vacancy) was absent, the committee had no basis to recommend compensation in lieu of appointment, and the Managing Director had no basis to reject Banik's claim. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had rightly found the rejection unsustainable and had rightly issued consequential directions.

Outcome

The Division Bench, finding no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's judgment dated 23 May 2025, dismissed the intra-court appeal on 15 June 2026. The directions issued by the Single Judge for Dipankar Banik's compassionate appointment accordingly stand.