21.09.2026 rpan/09 WPST 154 of 2026 Subhadra Duley & Others – Versus – The State of West Bengal & Others Mr. Lalratan Mondal, Mr. Dilip Kumar Sadhu … for the Petitioner. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ms. Soma Chakraborty, Mr. Kaustav Seal … for the State/Respondents. Mr. B. P. Banerjee, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee …. for the Respondent no. 7. Records reveal that challenging an order dated 17th July, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3, the original application (in short, OA) being OA 762 of 2021 was preferred by one Rabi Duley (in short, Rabi), the original applicant. During pendency of the OA, Rabi expired on 5th November, 2025 and before the OA could be disposed of, the learned Tribunal stopped functioning. As the heirs of Rabi were rendered remediless, they were constrained to approach this Court. Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners herein, being the legal heirs of Rabi, submits that the respondents illegally rejected Rabi’s claim towards condonation of the deficiency in the qualifying service without taking into account the service rendered by him as a seasonal Khalasi under work charged establishment from July, 1968 to 17th April, 1996. Rabi was, thereafter, allowed to join as regular employee with effect from 18th April, 1996 and he retired on 31st May, 2004 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The respondents considered the actual service rendered by Rabi on and from 18th April, 1996 till his retirement and for not calculating the period of service rendered prior thereto, his qualifying service fell short of 10 years. Such shortfall was of a period of one year, ten months and sixteen days for which he was denied pensionary benefits. Mr. Mondal argues that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra inasmuch as a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 23rd July, 2014 passed in WPST 379 of 2013 observed inter alia that the service rendered by an employee on a temporary basis continuously, prior to his being conferred with the permanent status must be taken into account for computing qualifying service for payment of pension. The said writ petition was also filed by a seasonal worker in the Kangsabati Canals Division. Rabi also worked in the said Division and as such, the respondents cannot apply a different yardstick in the case of Rabi. Ms. Alam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondents 2 submits that Rabi’s claim has been rejected as he did not discharge 10 years of service in a regular post. Let the written instruction, as placed, be kept on record. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, Rabi rendered service continuously as a Seasonal Khalasi under work charged establishment from July, 1968 to 17th April, 1996 i.e., about a period of 28 years. The pension scheme is a beneficial one and the benefits pertaining to the said scheme cannot be denied mechanically and continuous service rendered prior to conferment of permanent status needs to be taken into account for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service for payment of pension. The said issue has already been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and such direction has also been complied with. For the reasons discussed above, the order dated 17th July, 2019 impugned in the OA being OA 766 of 2017 is set aside and the respondents are directed to condone the deficiency of one year, ten months and sixteen days in qualifying service of Rabi and to disburse the pensionary benefits to the petitioners herein, being the legal heirs of Rabi, in 3 accordance with law and subject to compliance of necessary formalities, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The present writ petition, being WPST 154 of 2026 as well as the original application, being OA 762 of 2021 is disposed of. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Registrar, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal immediately to record disposal of the OA, being OA 762 of 2021. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Pratim Roy, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) 4