D/L- 12 23/07/2026 Ct. No.-10 Aritra In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side WPA 1259 of 2026 Bijoy Pradhan & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Ved Rai Mr. Mayank Bhandari Mr. Vivek Saha Mr. Binayak Badopadhyay Mr. Hrisav Anirban Ghosh ….for the petitioners Mr. Jagriti Mishra, AAAG Ms. Mrinmayee Das ….for the State Ms. Supriya Singh Ms. Susmita Ghosh ….for the GTA The petitioners participated in a recruitment process initiated by the then Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (for short “DGHC”) now Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (for short “GTA”) in the year 2002 for recruitment of primary teachers in various schools in the region within the control of GTA. The petitioners alleged that though the written examination and interview was completed in the year 2002 and the panel was prepared immediately thereafter but the same was not formally published till November 8, 2013. After publication of the panel the petitioners were issued appointment letters sometimes in the year 2013 and immediately thereafter joined different 2 institutions under the control and administration of GTA in the year 2013. The petitioners are on the verge of retirement from services upon attaining the age of superannuation. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the delay in issuing the appointment letters in favour of the petitioners is not attributable to the petitioners. Mr. Ghosh submits that the delay in issuing the appointment letters seriously affected the prospect of receiving pensionary and other benefits. Mr. Ghosh submits that the authorities should be directed to treat the petitioners to have been appointed from the date(s) of their empanelment notionally for the purpose of calculation of pension and other retiremental benefits. In support of such contention Mr. Ghosh places reliance upon a judgment and order passed on April 11, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in MAT 1211 of 2019 in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Sumohan Mondal & Ors., and judgment and order dated October 31, 2019 in WPST 112 of 2019 in the case of Asim Kumar Chakrabarti vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.. He also places reliance upon several decisions of coordinate benches in support of his contention. He has specifically placed reliance upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench dated January 3, 3 2025 in WPA 2671 of 2024 in the case of Nanda Kishor Tamang vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.. In Sumohan Mondal (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench after noting that the delay was attributable to the conduct of the authorities and the appointment could not be secured promptly the moment it was crystallized held that social justice demands that the person should not lose the benefits when the others have actually received the same with the prompt action of the authorities. In Asim Kumar Chakraborty (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to condone the shortfall in qualifying service period on the ground that the delay in issuing the appointment letter is not attributable to the employee. In Nanda Kishor Tamang (supra), the Co- ordinate Bench directed the authorities to consider the prayer of the petitioner to disburse pension after condoning the shortfall period of service. Mr. Ghosh, however, submits that comprehensive representations by the writ petitioners herein have not been submitted though some mass petitions by several similarly situated teachers have been submitted before the concerned authority. He prays for a liberty to submit a comprehensive representation before the concerned authority. 4 Learned Assistant Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners have claimed notional seniority from the date of completion of recruitment process in the year 2002. Such benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have not rendered actual service from 2002 till the appointment letters were issued in their favour. He further submits that since the petitioners have been appointed only in the year 2013, they cannot claim any benefit from an anterior date. He further submits that the delay in issuing the appointment letters was on account of change of administrative authority from DGHC to GTA. In reply, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, upon instructions, submits that the petitioners are not pressing their claim with regard to notional seniority but is pressing the claim for giving notional benefit only for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. Such submission of Mr. Ghosh is placed on record. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have rendered service prior to joining the post of teachers upon receipt of the appointment letters. Thus the petitioners are not entitled to receive any salary or actual financial benefits for any period prior to joining the post of teachers in the school. 5 In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court feels that the petitioners should be given liberty to submit a representation before the respondent authority insofar as their prayer to treat the petitioners to have been notionally appointed from the date of their empanelment only for the purpose of calculation of pensionary and other retiremental benefit. If such a representation is submitted by the petitioners before the concerned respondent authority, such authority shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of a server copy of this order along with the copy of the representation permitted to be submitted. It will be open to the petitioners to appoint an authorised representative for the purpose of representing them before the respondent authorities. It will be open to the petitioners to place reliance upon any judgment, orders passed by this Hon’ble Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court or any relevant notices, circulars, etc. at the time of hearing in support of their claim for notional benefit. The authorities will be free to take a decision in accordance with law after considering the issues that may be raised by the petitioners at the time of hearing before such authority. The authorities are left free to 6 decide as to the applicability or otherwise of the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand. In view of the above discussions and observations, WPA 1259 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)