Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioners have claimed themselves to be similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the petitioners of W.P. No. 16423(W) of 2008 (Shri Satyendranath Dutta & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and, therefore, entitled to the same benefits.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the issue of interpretation of circular bearing No. 12 of 1985-86 dated July 9, 1985 issued by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), Education Department had fallen for consideration in the three writ petitions decided on May 2, 2016. He has submitted that, the judgment and order of Shri Satyendranath Dutta & Anr. was upheld in appeal. Consequently, KMC is bound by the interpretation of the circular as given in the judgment and order passed in Shri Satyendranath Dutta & Anr. .
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the petitioners are similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the writ petitioners in Shri Satyendranath Dutta & Anr. . He has relied upon (K. C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1997 6 SCC 721), (State of Karnataka & Ors. v. C. Lalitha, 2006 2 SCC 747) and (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., 2015 1 SCC 347) in support of his contentions that, the benefit of a judgment should be given to all similarly situated and circumstanced persons. He has relied upon (M/s. P.D. Amman & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,1985 2 SCC 513), (Abid Hussain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1987 AIR(SC) 820) and (State of Kerala v. Kumari T. P. Roshana & Anr., 1979 1 SCC 572) in support of the contention that, delay by itself does not defeat the claim of the petitioners. He has submitted that, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the interpretation given by the High Court in the judgment and order passed in Shri Satyendranath Dutta & Anr.;