Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46707 (CAL)

SURYAKANTA MAHATA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/10627/2026 · 2026-09-28

Bivas Pattanayak

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

28.09.2026 Item No.17 (DL) Court No.14 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION W.P.A. 10627 of 2026 Suryakanta Mahata -Vs- The State of West & Ors. Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Mr. Suthirtha Nayek. …for the petitioner. Ms. Manju Agarwal, Ld. A.G.P., Ms. Marry Dutta, Mr. Sourav Sengupta. …for the State. 1. Report filed by the Chairman-in-Charge, District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur dated 17th September, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to disburse the arrear salaries of the petitioner on and from 11th February, 2014 to 28th August, 2014. 3. The petitioner contends that he joined as an Assistant Teacher in Dainmari Primary School under Belpahari Circle, Paschim Medinipur District Primary School Council on 11th February, 2014. Subsequently the petitioner was transferred to Singla Primary School under Garhbeta West Circle where he joined on 5th October, 2021. The petitioner has not been paid salary from the date of his joining till 28th 2 August, 2014. The petitioner claims for disbursement of arrear salaries on and from 11th February 2014 till 28th August, 2014. 4. Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances this Court in Sri Tarak Nath Chakraborty versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: WPA No.20548 of 2019) has allowed the prayer of the petitioner in the said writ petition and directed the respondent authorities to disburse the arrear salary together with interest. The present petitioner stands on the same footing. He seeks that similar benefit be extended to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Sourav Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner’s salary could not be disbursed from the date of joining since the post did not get the financial approval. The financial approval was given to such post on 29th August, 2014 and since then petitioner is receiving salary on regular basis. The writ petition is filed belatedly. 6. In similar circumstances the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Tarak Nath Chakraborty (supra) passed the following direction:- “10. The petitioner shall be paid the salary for the period from 11th February, 2014 until 31st August, 2014, mandatorily and positively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the DPSC, 3 Paschim Medinpur and the D.I. of Schools (P.e.), Paschim Medinipur together with interest @8% per annum from 1st March, 2014 till the date of actual payment.” 7. Although it has been asserted on behalf of the State that the writ petition is filed belatedly, however, delay per se cannot deprive the petitioner of his rightful claim [See: Union of India versus Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 648]. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is similarly circumstanced as of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be paid salary for the period on and from 11th February, 2014 to 28th August, 2014, positively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinpur and the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim Medinipur together with interest @ 8% per annum on and from 1st March, 2014 till the date of actual payment. 10. Learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.6, the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Paschim Medinipur and the respondent no.7, the District Primary School Council, Paschim Medinipur, for necessary compliance. 4 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition being WPA 10627 of 2026 stands disposed of. 12. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 14. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)