Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 33285 (CAL)

DOLGOPAL BHATTACHARYYA v. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGTION AND WATERWAYS AND ORS.

WPA/17985/2026 · 2026-08-07

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

07.08.2026 10 sdas WPA 17985 of 2026 Dolgopal Bhattacharyya Vs. The Secretary, Department of Irrigation & Waterways, Govt. of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Pradip Kumar Mondal Mr. Arka Mondal .….. for the petitioner Mr. Amit Chakraborty, learned AGP Mrs. Soma Chakraborty Mr. Kaustav Seal ……for the State 1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that in spite of direction from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on August 13, 2013, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6748-6749 of 2013 arising out of SLP(C ) Nos. 6177-6178 of 2012 (Buddhadeb Ruidas & Ors. etc. etc. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), he was not given appointment within the stipulated time but after a considerable delay. 3. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that this delay in issuance of the order of appointment is not attributable to any act of commission and/or omission on the part of the petitioner. The result being that the petitioner retired without the mandatory ten years of service, thus, disentitling him from receiving any pension. Since the 2 petitioner has not completed the mandatory ten years of service, his pension and terminal benefits have been grossly affected. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for a default which has occurred due to the laches and negligence of the authorities. 4. It is true that the petitioner ought to have been appointed within the stipulated eight weeks from August 13, 2013, in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It is equally true that the petitioner has not been appointed within the stipulated time, but much after. 5. This delay in appointment, prima facie is not attributable to any default on the part of the petitioner. However, this is an issue, best considered by the authority before whom the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration, being respondent no. 1 herein. 6. However, the representation must be considered in the light of the order dated August 13, 2013, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. If found eligible, the representation of the petitioner should be allowed, thereby giving him all pensionary and terminal benefits to which he might be entitled. The entire process shall be completed by December 15, 2026. 7. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 3 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)