NIYAZUL HAQUE ANSARI SATABDI DAS vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/6565/2026

Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 06th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0123932026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

24th March 2026

Filing Number

WPA/6261/2026

Filing Date

16-03-2026

Registration No

WPA/6565/2026

Registration Date

17-03-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 16 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

06th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

No Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

NIYAZUL HAQUE ANSARI SATABDI DAS

Respondent(s)

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

24-03-2026

NEW MOTION

06-05-2026

MOTION

04-05-2026

MOTION

06-04-2026

MOTION

02-04-2026

NEW MOTION

Orders

06-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

Case Summary: WPA 6565/2026 The Calcutta High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to decide the petitioner's compassionate appointment application within eight weeks, strictly per prevailing rules. The petitioner's father, a Group-D forest employee, died in February 2022; despite a screening committee being constituted in July 2023, no decision had been made despite multiple representations. The court emphasized that compassionate appointments must be considered urgently and not kept indefinitely pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPA 6565/2026 The Calcutta High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to decide the petitioner's compassionate appointment application within eight weeks, strictly per prevailing rules. The petitioner's father, a Group-D forest employee, died in February 2022; despite a screening committee being constituted in July 2023, no decision had been made despite multiple representations. The court emphasized that compassionate appointments must be considered urgently and not kept indefinitely pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case