Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2876
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Om Narayan Rai, J
Roshan Thapa & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
WPA 1299 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ekrumul Bari, Sk. Imtiaj Uddin, Mr. Rishav Das
For the Respondents: Ms. Supriya Singh
The absence of specific rules does not prevent granting notional benefits if justified by circumstances and precedents.
Headnote:(A) Gorkhaland Territorial Administration Act, 2021 - Section 26 - Entitlement to notional benefits - Petitioners, empanelled since 1998, sought notional benefits due to delays not attributable to them - Court directed GTA Authority to consider petitioners’ claims based on previous judgments. (Paras 7-12)
(B) Legal Principles - The absence of a specific rule or provision does not preclude the grant of notional benefits in deserving cases - Precedents establish entitlement under similar factual circumstances. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were empanelled as Assistant Teachers in 1998 but faced appointment delays due to court cases, prompting their application for notional benefits from the date of empanelment.
Findings of Court:
The GTA Authority must decide the entitlement for notional benefits considering previous judgments and afford hearings as appropriate.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to notional benefits despite the absence of specific provisions for them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the GTA Authority must evaluate the claims and uphold petitioners' rights in light of precedents.
Result: The court directed the GTA to take a decision within four weeks.
The writ petitioners participated in the regional level selection test conducted by the School Service Commission in the year 1998 in the Hilly Region and emerged successful.
The petitioners were then empanelled for the post of Assistant Teachers. However since no step was taken to provide appointment to the petitioners, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.233(W) of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated July 19, 2001, 2011 directing the School Service Commission, Hill region to give employment to empanelled petitioners according to their seniority and choice.
The petitioners were thereafter issued appointment letter by the School Authorities. The petitioners’ appointments were subsequently approved by the District Inspector of Schools(SE), GTA.
The petitioners submit that despite being empanelled for the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 1998 as aforesaid they appointment onlyin later due to pendency of court cases and not for any fault on the part of the petitioners.
Since the petitioners were not at fault and they are entitled to the notional benefits pertaining to their services, therefore, they requested to the District Schools(SE) Department of Education, GTA to grant notional benefits in respect of their service from the date of their empanelment. Such representations are still pending for consideration and as such, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
Mr. Bari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Suman Rai & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. in WPA 933 of 2024 and a iudgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Sumohan Mondal & Ors.(MAT 1211 of 2019) in support of his contention that in a similar fact situation, the Court has directed notional benefits to be extended to persons who approached the Court therefor.
Learned Additional Advocate General representing the State and Ms. Supriya Singh, learned counsel appearing for the GST seek time to file affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents in order to demonstrate that the petitioners are not entitled to the said benefits inasmuch as there is no extant rule/provision for grant of notional benefit to employees of Primary School Teachers.
The learned Additional Advocate General also relies on a notification dated September 4, 2024 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department to buttress his contention that since there is no extant Rule or provision for grant of notional benefit the same cannot be granted to the petitioner. A Copy of the said notification has been handed up to Court. Let the same be kept on record.
Mr. Bari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit in reply that the contention, that there is no extant rule or provision has been duly considered by this Court while delivering judgment in the case of Suman Rai(Supra).
He further submits that both the cited cases have considered the aspect of grant of notional benefits and it was then held that mere non-existence of any provision for grant of notional benefit cannot stand in the way of grant of such benefits.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the material on record, this court of the view that given the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioners no purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and directing exchange of affidavits. In the considered view of the Court, since the Gorkhaland Territorial Development Administration (hereafter “GTA”) Authority exercises control and power over matters pertaining inter alia to education in terms of Section 26 of the GTA Act, 2021, the issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get notional benefits or not should be decided by the GTA authority itself at the first instance.
In suc
