An eligible judicial officer is entitled to actual super-time-scale benefits from the date of eligibility.

The appellant, a retired Additional District Judge, retired on 31 October 2007.

His claim for super-time scale under the West Bengal Judicial Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2003 (“2003 Rules”) was initially rejected on the basis of his ACR grading up to 2006.

After becoming eligible, his claim was not reconsidered, although his junior, Sri Dulal Chandra De, was granted the benefit retrospectively from 1 January 2007 by Notification dated 19 December 2008.

The appellant pursued the matter through representations, applications under the Right to Information Act, and ultimately WPA 25149 of 2014.

The Writ Court directed reconsideration, following which the Administrative Committee found in December 2022 that the appellant satisfied the applicable norms and was eligible for super-time scale from 2007, but granted actual monetary benefits only from 21 December 2022.

The learned Single Judge dismissed WPA 11124 of 2023 on 20 June 2025, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the appellant was entitled to the actual monetary benefit of the super-time scale from 1 January 2007, being the date of his eligibility and the date from which his junior received the benefit, rather than merely notional benefits from that date.

Whether, after the Administrative Committee found that the appellant fulfilled all eligibility norms from 2007, the authorities could restrict the actual financial benefit to the date of the Committee’s decision in December 2022.

The Court applied Rule 15 of the West Bengal Judicial Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 2003, which provides for super-time scale to an eligible District Judge who has completed three years in the selection grade, falls within the prescribed 10% range of higher judicial officers, and satisfies the specified ACR and service-condition requirements, including the absence of disqualifying grades or pending disciplinary proceedings.

Rule 16 of the 2003 Rules recognises payment of arrears on the basis of an officer’s entitlement.

An eligible employee should not be denied a service benefit due to administrative inaction not attributable to the employee, and similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment where the same benefit has been granted retrospectively to a junior.

The Administrative Committee’s decision established that the appellant fulfilled all applicable norms and was eligible for the super-time scale from 2007.

His earlier non-selection did not permanently bar reconsideration after he became eligible, and the delay in reconsideration resulted from the authorities’ mistaken view that a second consideration was impermissible, not from any laches on his part.

Since the appellant’s junior had received the same benefit retrospectively from 1 January 2007, denying the appellant actual benefits from that date would result in discriminatory treatment.

Rule 16 also supported payment of arrears according to the established entitlement.

The Court therefore held that limiting monetary benefits to 21 December 2022, despite recognising eligibility from 2007, was unjustified.

The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the actual benefit of the super-time scale with effect from 1 January 2007, the date from which his junior, Sri Dulal Chandra De, had received the benefit.

The order dated 20 June 2025 in WPA 11124 of 2023 was set aside, and the authorities were directed to grant the benefit and complete the consequential exercise preferably within three months from receipt or production of the order.

The connected application was disposed of, with no order as to costs.