Item No.- 11 14.09.2026 Court No. 4 Rohan In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.S.T. 11 of 2019 Sri Nima Zimba Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Syed Julfikar Ali … for the Petitioner 1. The petitioner retired from service as an Upper Division Clerk on 31st August, 2008. He approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) for a direction to grant him the benefit of the supervisory post of Head Clerk with effect from 1st January, 1996. The Tribunal rejected the claim holding that no post of Head Clerk was available in the District. The order of the Tribunal is dated 17th July, 2018 passed in O.A. No. 314 of 2018. 2. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner/applicant submits that the Tribunal’s order is unsustainable since it overlooked the memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009 whereby and whereunder the post of Head Clerk was created. The petitioner’s claim, therefore, was required to be considered. 3. We have considered the submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/applicant and gone 2 through the memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009. Paragraph 2 of the Memorandum reads as under: “2. After careful consideration of the matter, the Governor has been pleased to decide (a) the ration of posts of Head Clerk to those L.D. Clerk and U.D. Clerk would be fixed at 10:1, i.e., for every 10 posts of L.D. Clerk and U.D. Clerk there would be a Supervisory post of Head Clerk in Scale No. 10 (4500-9700/-) w.e.f. 01-08-2008, (b) the total number of Supervisory posts in Scale No. 10 (4500-9700/-) should be kept at 10% of combined strength of L.D. Clerk and U.D. Clerk w.e.f 01-08-2008, (c) the additional posts of Head Clerk in Scale No. 10 (4500-9700/-) would be created w.e.f. 08-03-2008, (d) where the existing number of such supervisory level posts is more than 10% of L.D. Clerk and U.D. Clerk, no additional supervisory level posts will be created and (e) the respective authority which maintains the gradation list shall give effect to this order as mentioned above and the same has to be ratified by Finance Department through their respective Administrative Department positively within 31-07-2009.” 4. A plain reading of the Memorandum reveals that the same comtemplates creation of supervisory level post of Head Clerk to the extent of 10% of the combined strength of the cadre of Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk. The posts were, therefore, required to be identified to the extent of 10% of the combined strength as per paragraph 2 of the Memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009. Thereafter, 3 the Memorandum further contemplates that the exercise of identification of posts was to be ratified by the Finance Department. Therefore, posts did not come into existence by virtue of the Memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009. 5. The Memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009, therefore, cannot be relied upon to contend that the post of Head Clerk was in existence, though it may have directed for creation of such posts based on the exercise contemplated therein. 6. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal rejecting the O.A. on the ground that the post of Head Clerk was not available. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)