MD. AZAHAR HOSSAIN RAFIKUL ISLAM SARDAR vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/2728/2026
Case under West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act ,1963 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 06th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0050742026
Next Hearing
10th February 2026
Filing Number
WPA/2553/2026
Filing Date
03-02-2026
Registration No
WPA/2728/2026
Registration Date
04-02-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
In service Other 297 ( 9 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MD. AZAHAR HOSSAIN RAFIKUL ISLAM SARDAR
Respondent(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
NEW MOTION
MOTION 2
MOTION 2
MOTION 2
MOTION 2
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-02-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 05-05-2026 | MOTION 2 |
| 04-05-2026 | MOTION 2 |
| 22-04-2026 | MOTION 2 |
| 08-04-2026 | MOTION 2 |
Orders
Case Summary: WPA 2728/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of terminal benefits. The court held that although the petitioner had completed 10+ years of service before his 2015 termination, his subsequent fresh engagement in June 2024 (following a 2022 appellate order) constituted a new appointment rather than reinstatement. Since the petitioner served only six months from this fresh engagement before retiring on 31 December 2024, he failed to meet the minimum 10-year continuous service requirement for terminal benefits and was therefore ineligible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WPA 2728/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of terminal benefits. The court held that although the petitioner had completed 10+ years of service before his 2015 termination, his subsequent fresh engagement in June 2024 (following a 2022 appellate order) constituted a new appointment rather than reinstatement. Since the petitioner served only six months from this fresh engagement before retiring on 31 December 2024, he failed to meet the minimum 10-year continuous service requirement for terminal benefits and was therefore ineligible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts