25th August, 2026 (D/L No.21-22) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.S.T. 38 of 2024 With W.P.S.T. 39 of 2024 Bimal Pal Versus The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Bimal Pal … petitioner in person. Mr. Souvik Nandy, Sr. Adv. … for the State. 1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned senior advocate representing the State. 2. The two writ petitions have been filed challenging two separate orders passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to the “Tribunal”). The two orders passed by the Tribunal are in respect of the writ petitioner’s challenge to two separate reasoned orders, both dated 01.02.2023. The reasoned orders were passed in compliance with orders passed earlier by the Tribunal on the petitioner’s Original Application being O.A. No.26 of 2022 (Bimal Pal Vs. The State of West Bengal and others). 3. The two reasoned orders dealt with the petitioner’s claim for regularization of the period 2 for his absence from duty from 06.01.2003 to 31.07.2003 and thereafter, from 28.01.2004 to 02.01.2005. The total period of absence involved is 548 days. The writ petitioner was claiming regularization of the two periods of absence by grant of appropriate leave. 4. Prior to his joining in the Government College of Engineering and Ceramic Technology, the petitioner worked in the Kalyani Government Engineering College for a substantial period of time. The petitioner claimed that his service in the Kalyani Government Engineering College be added to his service in the Government College of Engineering and Ceramic Technology for all purposes. 5. Both the claims are linked to an issue whether the petitioner could be granted any leave for the period of absence (548 days). The petitioner appearing in person and the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, therefore, have made their submissions common to both the writ petitions. Under the circumstances, we proceeded to consider the claims of the writ petitioner by this common judgment. 6. The brief facts leading to filing of the Original Application being O.A. No. 467 of 2023 is that 3 the petitioner joined in the Kalyani Government Engineering College as a Laboratory Assistant on contract basis for one year on 06.09.1996. His services were confirmed on 07.09.1999. Subsequently, he was redesignated as a Technical Assistant. 7. The petitioner was desirous of pursuing an M. Tech. degree and wrote a letter dated 24.02.2002, to the Principal, Director of Technical Education. Thereafter, he proceeded to pursue his studies preparatory to admission in M. Tech/M.E. course. Having obtained the admission, he pursued his studies and, thus, remained absent for the period (548 days), taken note of above. 8. He thereafter rejoined the erstwhile employer on 03.01.2005. In June, 2006, he succeeded in getting employment in the Government College of Engineering and Ceramic Technology and, thereafter, he joined the said college. 9. Several years later, he raised a claim for regularization of the period of absence (548 days) which was rejected by the authorities by two impugned order/s dated 01.02.2023. 10. It is an admitted position that the writ petitioner proceeded to pursue his course (M. Tech.) without grant of leave. Petitioner in-person, 4 however, submits that others in the department proceeded in a similar manner and their period of unauthorized absence was regularized subsequently. He was, therefore, of the opinion that his absence also would be subsequently regularized. He also placed reliance on Rule 175(2)(b)(iii) as well as Rule 34(1) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I. It is submitted that the Tribunal should have directed for regularization for the period of absence and thereafter for counting of service rendered in the Kalyani Government Engineering College, at least limited to the period after his rejoining on 03.01.2005; till June 2006, when he left the Kalyani Government Engineering College. 11. Learned senior advocate for the State submits that the reasoned orders dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Director of Technical Education took note of the entire facts and circumstances, which are not in dispute. The period of absence during which the petitioner was pursuing his M.Tech., was not preceded by grant of any kind of leave by the authorities. The petitioner, however, proceeded to pursue the course. The Kalyani Government Engineering College was, thus, deprived of the petitioner’s service for a 5 long period (548 days), when there was no leave granted to the petitioner. 12. Rule 175(2)(b)(iii) and Rule 34(1) does not support the petitioner’s claim. The reasoned order/s required no interference. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim. 13. We have considered the submission of the petitioner in person, the provisions in the West Bengal Service Rules relied upon, as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned senior advocate for the State. 14. A plain reading of the provisions relied upon by the petitioner reveals, that neither Rule 34(1) nor Rule 175(2)(b)(iii) contemplates a Government employee/ petitioner proceeding to abandon his post/service in the Kalyani Government Engineering College without any leave; which can be regularized on his claim, made as and when he returns to service at his own sweet will. The provisions do not support the petitioner’s claim. 15. In so far as counting of the period of service in Kalyani Government Engineering College after his rejoining from 03.01.2005 till June 2006, the petitioner in person submitted that since he had applied for appointment in the Government College of Engineering and Ceramic Technology 6 through proper channel, the period should have been added to his service in the Government College of Engineering and Ceramic Technology. We find that there is no material on record to show that there was any terms in the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner had applied and joined, or that at the time of joining at the Government College of Engineering and Ceramic Technology, there was any stipulation by any authority for counting of his past services rendered in the Kalyani Government Engineering College. No rule or provision was pointed out by the petitioner in person under which such a benefit can be granted. The prayer, in so far as grant of such benefit also, therefore, could not be granted to the petitioner and was rightly rejected by the reasoned order/s; as well as the Tribunal. 16. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s claim by the two orders which are the subject matter of the two writ petitions. 17. However, before parting with the judgment, we take note of observations made in the last paragraph of page 3 of the Tribunal’s order dated 17.01.2024, which reads as follows: “The Tribunal is also concerned that the said leave period is not a matter of few days, but it 7 totals 548 days! As a Government employee, it is surprising that he not only disregarded the rule and without formal approval proceeded to pursue his M.Tech degree, but despite show cause notices, he was stubborn and did not bother to join his duty. A Government employee disregarding the formal approval and disobeying the directions in the show cause and absenting himself for a long period of 548 days is unparallel and a classic case of insubordination.” 18. We find the absence without any kind of leave is in respect of 548 days in between January 2003 to January 2005, about two decades back. Under the circumstances, such observation of the Tribunal giving a finding of insubordination, without any enquiry whatsoever is clearly unsustainable. If such findings were to be recorded, they were to be recorded in a departmental proceeding, constituted in accordance with law. 19. Having regard to the fact that the absence relates to a period, about two decades back, initiation of proceedings today in respect of such stale charges would also be unsustainable in the eyes of law. We, therefore, find such observations in the order of the Tribunal to be uncalled for and unsustainable. Insofar as such observations are concerned, and limited to this extent, we set aside the order of the Tribunal. 20. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 8 21. Urgent photostat certified copy, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)