IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side 27.07.2026 S/L 02 Court No. 4 (Naba) W.P.S.T. 126 of 2026 Sri Bimal Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Tapash Kr. Bhattacharya, Mr. Aviroop Bhattacharya ...the Petitioners Mr. Subhomoy Patra ...the State/Respondents 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioners and the learned advocate for the State. 2. The predecessor (Pratima Das, since deceased) of the writ petitioners was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 394 of 2024. The applicant was a female GDA and was unauthorisedly absent leading to an order of removal from service on 29.07.2011. The applicant’s date of attaining the age of superannuation was 30.06.2012. The O.A. was filed in the year 2024, for setting aside the removal order passed in July 2011. The Tribunal has dismissed the same, as being barred by limitation. 2 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioners that the Tribunal failed to consider that the order of removal was not served on the applicant. After much effort, she got knowledge about the same by a reply dated 09.08.2021. Thereafter, she got legal notice served on the authorities on 18.01.2024. The O.A. has been filed within a year from the legal notice. 4. The learned advocate for the writ petitioners has also relied upon an unreported decision of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nani Bala Das Versus The Union of India and Others dated 14.08.2025 passed in MAT 1595 of 2023 to contend that the substantial relief claimed by the petitioners was for grant of pension, which is a continuing cause of action arising every month based on deprivation of such benefit. Therefore, the Tribunal’s decision rejecting the Original Application, as being barred by limitation, is unsustainable. 5. We have considered the submission, perused the record and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Nani Bala Das (supra). The records reveal an order of removal being passed against the applicant on 29.07.2011. Thereafter, there is no scope for the applicant to contend that she was unaware of the same as the immediate 3 consequence of such an order of removal would be that the applicant would not be allowed to work and that no payment of salary was being made to her. When she made queries in this regard also the authorities sent a letter to her on 09.08.2021, clarifying this situation. The communication dated 09.08.2021, was also not challenged. 6. By getting a legal notice sent on 18.01.2024, we are of the view that the petitioners have tried to resurrect an otherwise stale and dead cause of action. 7. The proceedings before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal are governed by the Administrative Tribunals Act. Sections 20 and 21 of the same prescribe limitation and also contemplate that the Tribunal shall not admit an application, unless it is satisfied that the remedies available to such applicant were availed of. 8. On a conjoint consideration of Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, we find that the applicant’s approach to the Tribunal was hopelessly barred by limitation. 9. We find no infirmity in the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the Original Application bearing O.A. No.394 of 2024. 10. We further observe that from bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is apparent that 4 the petitioners did not take out a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay. 11. The circumstances do not leave any scope for interference with the Tribunal’s order dated 04.03.2025 passed in O.A. No. 394 of 2024. 12. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)