S/L 11 16.09.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N W.P.S.T. 272 of 2025 Sabita Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay, Ms. Lipika Chatterjee, Mr. Sounik Dey, Ms. Rika Das … for the Petitioner. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. AGP, Ms. Runu Mukherjee … for the State of West Bengal. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner and the learned AGP. 2. There is a shortfall in the minimum qualifying service (10 years) requisite under Rule 62 of the West Bengal Death- cum-Retirement Benefit Rules, 1971 (for short ‘DCRB Rules, 1971’). The writ petitioner’s claim was considered for condonation of this shortfall for grant of minimum pension. The claim with reference to Rule 36 of the DCRB Rules, 1971 has been rejected by an order dated 05.03.2025 issued by the Senior Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Land and Land Reforms and Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department. The authority held Rule 36 to be ‘not applicable’. The same was put to challenge by way of a Miscellaneous Application being M.A. No. 73 of 2025 filed before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 205 of 2024 pursuant to such liberty granted by this Court in the petitioner’s earlier writ petition (W.P.S.T. No. 98 of 2025). 2 3. Pursuant to the order dated 13.06.2025 passed in the said writ proceeding the matter was brought before the Tribunal which has since become non functional for want of a member. In the circumstance the writ petitioner again invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court by the present writ proceeding. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is left remedyless on account of non functioning of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal wherein a very vital claim of the petitioner for grant of pension is not being considered for want of a member. 5. Relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar –Vs.- Union of India & Others reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261 read with decision in the case of Roger Mathew –Vs.- South Indian Bank Limited represented by its Chief Manager and Others reported in (2020) 6 SCC 1 he submits that being rendered remedyless the petitioner was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. We thus proceeded to take up the petitioner’s claim and invited an affidavit-in-opposition from the State authority. The affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in- reply thereto were filed. 6. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that Rule 36 of the DCRB Rules, 1971 provides discretion in the Government to condone deficiency in qualifying service of a Government servant up to 6 months. The refusal to exercise such discretion by the impugned order 3 is without assigning any reasons and visits the petitioner with great prejudice. 7. He submits that the discretion once it is vested in the authority and the claim is within the discretion specified in the Rule, the authority is obliged to exercise such discretion, unless of course there is any circumstance coming in the way of exercise of such discretion, duly specified in the order refusing to exercise jurisdiction. 8. The learned AGP on the other hand submits that the discretion cannot be exercised ipso facto for the mere asking. The Government Authority (the Deputy Secretary) has considered the claim and found that the petitioner had deficiency in qualifying service as contemplated under the Rule 62 of the DCRB Rules, 1971. The Deputy Secretary has clearly stated that Rule 36 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the decision not to condone the deficiency is supported by a decision after due consideration requiring no interference. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. 10. The condonation is claimed under Rule 36 of the DCRB Rules, 1971 which reads: “36. Power of Government to condone deficiency in service,-Upon any condition which it may think fit to impose, Government may condone a deficiency of six months in the qualifying service of a Government servant. Note – The deficiency should not be condoned with a view to make up the minimum prescribed qualifying service for the purpose of death gratuity or family pension. In other cases power should be restricted to Government servant drawing not exceeding Rs. 425/- per month at the time of retirement on invalid or compensation pension.” 4 11. The Rule is explicit in its intent contemplating condonation of a deficiency in qualifying service, limited up to 6 months. The deficiency, however, is circumscribed by a note below the Rule which states in unambiguous terms that such condonation cannot be resorted to make up minimum qualifying service prescribed for the purpose of death gratuity or family pension. 12. We find in the present case the writ petitioner did not pray for condonation with a view to being considered eligible for a death gratuity or family pension. The condonation is sought for grant of minimum pension to the petitioner by treating qualifying service of 10 years after according a condonation of 2 months and 13 days, being the shortfall. 13. We further find that Rule 36 vest discretion in the authority to grant condonation as prayed for by the writ petitioner but subject to conditions which it may think fit to impose. 14. We further find that the reasoned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim does not specify any reason whatsoever to sustain the conclusion regarding Rule 36 of the DCRB Rules, 1971, extracted above, not being applicable in the case of the writ petitioner. The reasoned order dated 05.03.2025, therefore, in our opinion, is unsustainable. The same is hereby quashed. 5 15. We direct the authority to exercise discretion under Rule 36 for condonation of the 2 months 13 days shortfall in favour of the petitioner for grant of minimum pension by treating qualifying service of 10 years. 16. While considering such claim the authority would be at liberty to impose condition as contemplated under Rule 36. Upon such consideration, the benefits, found due are required to be paid to the petitioner alongwith arrears thereupon within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the authority. 17. The writ petition is allowed. 18. As a consequence of the order passed today, the Miscellaneous Application being M.A. No. 73 of 2025 filed before the Tribunal stands disposed of. The O.A. No. 205 of 2024 also stands disposed of accordingly. 19. A copy of this order be communicated to the Registry of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. 20. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)