The Calcutta High Court noted that even though there was no statutory provision under the Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 to condone the delay beyond a certain limit, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the delay in the actions of the authorities in appointment, and hence, the court changed the date of appointment for the consideration of pension.
Brief Facts:
The writ petition has challenged the order of the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal School Education Department dated 24.02.2022 and condonation of deficiency in the qualifying service period for the grant of pension has been prayed.
The petitioner had rendered services for the duration of 9 years 5 months and 17 days whereas the qualifying period for receiving pension as per the service rules is 10 years. As there was some shortfall in the qualifying service the petitioner had filed a writ petition for condonation of deficiencies in the service period wherein the respondent authorities were asked to consider the petitioner’s prayer, but the same was rejected by the Principal Secretary, hence the instant writ petition was filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the authorities were responsible for the delay in the matter of appointment which led to the shortfall in the qualifying service for retiring pension and accordingly, it was contended that the petitioner cannot be deprived of pensionary benefits and the respondent authorities should be directed to treat the petitioners as have been appointed with effect from an earlier date for the purpose of the pensionary benefits. The petitioner’s side also relied on several judgments for the purpose of their contentions.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued against the petitioner’s contentions and submitted that the authorities cannot do anything unless the statute provides the power and the Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (DCRB Rules) do not confer any such power to condone the delay beyond 6 months and therefore, nothing can be done by the authorities.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that the petitioner had approached this court initially for the purpose of selection for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher and accordingly it was noted that the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher but the action of the respondent authorities resulted in the delay in issuing appointment letter to the petitioner. it was further noted that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay in the actions of the authority and cannot be penalized for the same.
The court then noted that according to the DCRB rules, 1891 does not give the power to condone the shortfall beyond the outer cap and no mandamus can be issued, but the petitioner cannot be penalized for the lack of promptness in taking action by the concerned authorities. The court then applied the law laid down in the case of the State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Sumohan Mondal and ors. and noted that the date on which the petitioner’s name was forwarded to the Director of Secondary Education shall be used as the appointment date for pensionary benefits.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order and the Secretary, of the Department of Primary Education was directed to consider the claims of the petitioner for the pensionary benefits by treating the appointment date of the petitioner as per the observations of the court.
Case Title: Goalbadan Mandal v. State of West Bengal & ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Case no.: WPA 7881 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Biswarup Biswas
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, A.G.P, Mr. Lal Mohan Basu
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
