- (1.) A common question is involved in the present writ petitions and therefore, they have been heard together. The petitioner in each of these petitions was engaged as a seasonal worker with the Kangsabati Canals Division No. I. The Executive Engineer of Kangsabati Canals Division No. I issued a letter to the Secretary, Irrigation and Waterways Department for regularisation of the services of the petitioners and several other persons. Each of the petitioner was made permanent in service on 18th April, 1996. They continued to work as such till they reached their respective ages of retirement. However pension was not paid to the petitioners. The petitioners filed individual application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal seeking the payment of pension. The applications were dismissed by the Tribunal.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the petitioners preferred individual writ petitions before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Nishita Mhatre, J.) was a member, did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as the petitioners lacked the qualifying service for payment of pension. However, the Division Bench directed the authorities to reconsider the claim on each of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Haradhan Mahato v. State of West Bengal & Others (WPST No. 184 of 2010).
(3.) Accordingly the respondents reconsidered the respective claims of the petitioners for disbursing pension and gratuity under the West Bengal (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules [hereinafter referred to as "DCRB Rules"]. However, the petitioners' claims were rejected once again by the respondents. The petitioners therefore preferred individual applications again before the Tribunal seeking the release of pension to them under the DCRB Rules.;