Naba IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Partha Pratim Roy F.M.A. 1427 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Kanailal Chakraborty Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Appellant : Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Ms. Debasree Dhamali, Ms. Riya Ghosh, Ms. Debolina Ghosh For the Respondent Nos.3&4 : Mr. Debashis Banerjee, Mr. Rakesh Jana Heard on : 8th September, 2026 Judgment on : 8th September, 2026 Madhuresh Prasad, J.: 1. The matter is placed before this Court by way of assignment order dated 28.08.2026. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner and the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The brief facts not in dispute are that the petitioner retired as an Additional District Judge on 31.10.2007. The appellant/writ petitioner was denied the benefit of super-time scale, w.e.f. 01.01.2007. 2 2 4. The appellant’s claim was earlier considered by the Administrative Committee, with reference to his grading in the A.C.R. for the relevant period, till 2006, and found the petitioner ineligible for grant of the benefit. 5. Thereafter, though the petitioner claims he became eligible, his case was not reconsidered for grant of the benefit of super-time scale. After the petitioner became eligible, his junior was granted the same by a Notification dated 19.12.2008, w.e.f. 01.01.2007. The benefit was claimed under The West Bengal Judicial Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2003 Rules’). 6. The 2003 Rules contemplate grant of the benefit of super-time scale to an officer in the rank of a District Judge, who has completed 03 years in the selection grade and was within 10% of the post of higher judicial officers in the rank of District Judge. The Rule contemplates that such officer should not have been granted a Grade ‘E’ during the last 03 years and that he should not have been granted a Grade ‘D’, more than once during the said period of 03 years. 7. The other two considerations generally applicable to grant of any promotional or scale benefit is that a departmental proceeding should not be pending against the officer, and obviously that he should not have suffered a punishment, either in a disciplinary proceeding or in a criminal proceeding. The petitioner, though was qualified on all these scores for consideration in the year 2007, his claim was not reconsidered. 3 3 8. Under the circumstances, he moved the authorities by filing applications under the Right to Information Act, seeking information regarding grant of similar benefits to others similarly situated, as a result of reconsideration. 9. Having obtained such information, the appellant/writ petitioner urged the authorities to also reconsider his claim w.e.f. the date of his becoming eligible, i.e. in the year 2007. 10. The authorities did not accede to the appellant’s claim to have a relook/reconsideration for granting him the benefit of super-time scale. Thus, he approached the Writ Court by filing WPA 25149 of 2014. 11. The same was considered by the learned Single Judge Bench and the learned Single Judge Bench found the reluctance of the respondents, not to reconsider the grant of benefit, to be unsustainable. The learned Single Judge Bench after considering the material-on-record, recorded a conclusion that the petitioner was eligible for consideration, and that benefit having denied earlier in 2006, there was no bar coming in the way of reconsideration in 2007. As a result of the directions passed by the Writ Court in the Judgement dated 24.02.2022, the Administrative Committee of the High Court in its meeting dated 21st December, 2022, found that the petitioner fulfilled all the norms and guidelines prescribed and that he was, thus, eligible for super-time scale of pay as per Rule 15 of the 2003 Rules. The Committee, thus, resolved to grant benefit of super-time scale, but notionally w.e.f. the date of his eligibility in the year 2007. Actual monetary benefit, however, was extended to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of the decision (21.12.2022). 4 4 12. The petitioner assailed the decision of the Administrative Committee dated 21.12.2022, insofar as it granted the benefit of super-time scale notionally w.e.f. 2007. 13. The learned Single Judge Bench after considering the petitioner’s claim dismissed the writ petition giving rise to the present Intra-Court Appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge in WPA 11124 of 2023 dated 20.06.2025, is the subject matter of the present Intra-Court Appeal. 14. The only issue arising for consideration in view of the above facts is, whether the appellant could be deprived the benefits of the super-time scale w.e.f. 01.01.2007, i.e. the date on which his junior was granted the benefit despite the decision of the Administrative Committee that he fulfilled all the norms and guidelines regarding eligibility for grant of the benefits w.e.f. 2007. 15. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondents are solely responsible for the appellant’s deprivation for so many years. 16. Others were allowed the benefit after reconsideration, but such reconsideration was not accorded to the appellant’s claim. Though he was eligible in the year 2007, the reconsideration was accorded in the year 2022, that also after a protracted effort by the appellant based on applications made under the Right to Information Act, representations and invocation of writ jurisdiction. 17. The Administrative Committee finally considered the appellant’s claim in December, 2022 in compliance of the order passed by the Writ 5 5 Court. The nature of benefit (grant of higher scale) is not linked to discharge of any duties on a higher post. He, therefore, submits that once the appellant is eligible, there can be no basis for denying the appellant grant of such benefit from the due date in the year, 2007. 18. The learned advocate for the respondent on the other hand submits that the Administrative Committed on a consideration of all aspects of the matter found the appellant entitled to the benefits in December, 2022. The benefits have been granted as per the appellant’s entitlement. However, for the period prior to decision of the Administrative Committee, the claim cannot be sustained. The material-on-record shows that the appellant has agitated such grievance since the year, 2013. 19. Such submission of the learned advocate for the respondents, however, is disputed by the appellant’s learned advocate, who submits that there is a specific averment made by him in his pleading regarding making of representations in the 2009 and 2010. 20. We have considered the rival submissions. 21. From the facts noted above, the records reveal that the appellant’s deprivation of the benefits of super-time scale is not in any way attributable to the appellant’s laches. The authorities earlier were of the view that once it was rejected in 2006, there was no scope for reconsideration. 22. The Writ Court in the earlier WPA 25149 of 2014 filed by the writ petitioners, found no basis for denying reconsideration/second consideration to the appellant’s claim in the next year after rejection of 6 6 his claim in the year 2006, since he had become eligible and was still in service. 23. The authorities have, thus, reconsidered the appellant’s claim and found him to be fulfilling all the norms and guidelines, since 2007. 24. We find that there is material-on-record, being the Notification dated 19.12.2008, whereby the appellant’s junior has been granted the said benefit, with retrospectivity, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.2007. However, the appellant though eligible was not accorded consideration while issuing Notification dated 19.12.2008. The Notification reveals that the actual benefit was granted to the beneficiaries therein with retrospective effect giving the benefit since two years prior to issuance of Notification dated 19.12.2008. 25. We further find from a bare perusal of Rule 16 of the 2003 Rules that the same contemplates grant of arrears based on entitlement. Therefore, the rule also acknowledges grant of arrears as per entitlement. 26. Under the circumstances, if the appellant is deprived of the actual benefits as per entitlement which is not in dispute, from the date of his eligibility/the date on which his junior, Sri Dulal Chandra De was granted the benefit (01.01.2007), the same would be detrimental to the appellant’s interest and would result in the appellant being discriminated against in the grant of the same benefit. 27. The matter having considered in the above background, we are of the view that there is no justification for depriving the appellant for grant of 7 7 the actual benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2007, i.e. the date on which the appellant’s junior was granted the benefit with retrospective effect. 28. We, therefore, hold that the appellant would also be entitled to grant of the benefit of super-time scale w.e.f. the date of his eligibility, the date on which his junior was granted, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.2007. 29. We, therefore, direct grant of the benefit of super-time scale to the petitioner with effect from the date as was granted to one Sri Dulal Chandra De, i.e., since 2007. 30. The appeal is allowed. 31. Connected application also stands disposed of accordingly. 32. The order dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 11124 of 2023 dismissing the writ petition is set aside. 33. The concerned authorities are expected to undertake and complete the exercise at an early date, preferably within 03 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 34. There will be no order as to costs. 35. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. I agree. (Partha Pratim Roy, J.) .D. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.)