SUJAY KUKMAR SHARMA NILAY BARAN MANDAL vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/6952/2026
Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0135052026
Next Hearing
25th March 2026
Filing Number
WPA/6881/2026
Filing Date
19-03-2026
Registration No
WPA/6952/2026
Registration Date
19-03-2026
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--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUJAY KUKMAR SHARMA NILAY BARAN MANDAL
Respondent(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
NEW MOTION
MOTION
MOTION
NEW MOTION
NEW MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 04-05-2026 | MOTION |
| 06-04-2026 | MOTION |
| 02-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 01-04-2026 | NEW MOTION |
Orders
Case Summary: WPA 6952/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death-in-harness in 2008. Although the petitioner's application was filed within the stipulated two-year period, Justice Amrita Sinha held that he lacked diligence in pursuing the claim and approached the court belatedly—nearly eighteen years later in 2026. The court reasoned that compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules intended for immediate financial relief, and the petitioner's prolonged delay negated his eligibility despite the amended 2016 notification extending the time limit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WPA 6952/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment following his father's death-in-harness in 2008. Although the petitioner's application was filed within the stipulated two-year period, Justice Amrita Sinha held that he lacked diligence in pursuing the claim and approached the court belatedly—nearly eighteen years later in 2026. The court reasoned that compassionate appointment is an exception to general recruitment rules intended for immediate financial relief, and the petitioner's prolonged delay negated his eligibility despite the amended 2016 notification extending the time limit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts