Goalbadan Mandal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6275 Cal

13.12.2021
 SL No. 10
Court No. 24
    (P.M.)
                                WPA 6632 of 2021

                                 Goalbadan Mandal
                                       Vs
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.
                             (Via Video Conference)


                                   Mr. Biswarup Biswas,
                                   Mr. Lutful Hoque
                                               ... for the petitioner

                                   Mr. Sarwar Jahan,
                                   Sk. Nayeemul Haque
                                         ... for respondent No. 4

Mr. S. Chattopadhyay,, Mr. Gourav Das ... for the State

Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner

in court is taken on rerecord.

The petitioner, after a protracted battle, was

given appointment as Assistant Teacher of Primary

School on 15th March, 2011 and he retired from

service on attaining his normal age of

superannuation on 31st August, 2020. Thus the

petitioner was in service for a period of nine years five

months and seventeen days.

The qualifying period for receiving pension as

per the Service Rules is ten years. There is a shortfall

in the service tenure of the petitioner for which the

petitioner has been held to be not entitled to retiring

pension.

According to the petitioner, there was a delay

on the part of the respondent authorities for issuing

the letter of appointment. The petitioner was no way

responsible in the said delay.

The petitioner places reference to the order

dated 6th December, 2010 passed in W.P. No. 5576

(W) of 2010 wherein the Court directed the

respondent authorities to take a decision with regard

to the issuance of the appointment letter in favour of

the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably

within a period of four weeks but not later than six

weeks from the date of communication of the order.

It appears that the said order was passed in

presence of the learned advocate representing the

Council. The letter of appointment was issued to the

petitioner beyond the time as prescribed by the

Court.

The petitioner submits that had the respondent

authorities issued the letter of appointment within

the time as specified by the Court, the petitioner

would have had service tenure of more than ten

years, hence qualifying for receiving pension.

The petitioner submits that he ought not to

suffer on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by

the respondent authorities at the time of issuance of

the letter of appointment.

In support of his aforesaid submission, the

petitioner relies upon a judgment delivered by this

Court in the matter of State of West Bengal - Vs -

Aparesh Chandra Datta reported in 2016 (2) CHN

(Cal) 494.

The Court in the aforesaid writ petition took

into consideration the provision of the West Bengal

Recognized Non-Government Educational Institutions

Employees (Death-cum-Retirement benefit) Scheme,

1981. The court was of the opinion that the

concerned authority cannot take advantage of their

own wrong and penalize the petitioner by refusing to

grant pension on the ground of deficiencies in the

service period.

In the instant case it appears that that the

respondent authorities delayed in issuing the

appointment letter in favour of the petitioner due to

which the petitioner could not attain the qualifying

service period for receiving his pension.

The learned advocate representing the

respondent authorities submits that as per the DCRB

Rules the petitioner ought to have approached the

respondent authorities with a prayer for condoning

the deficiencies of services.

It appears from the documents annexed to the

writ petition that by a representation dated 28th

September, 2020 the petitioner did apply before the

District Inspector of Schools, Murshidabad praying

for condonation of deficiencies in his service period.

The aforesaid representation of the petitioner has not

been answered by the respondent authorities.

Law in this regard has already been settled by

the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the matter of Aparesh Chandra Ghosh

(supra). The petitioner has applied before the

Assistant Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and

Group Insurance by a representation dated 8th April,

2021 for condoning the deficiencies in his service

period which has not been answered till date.

Accordingly the instant writ petition is disposed

of by directing the Secretary, Department of Primary

Education being the respondent No. 1 herein to take

a decision with regard to the prayer of the petitioner

for condoning the deficiencies in his service period in

the light of the order passed by the Court in the

matter of Aparesh Chandra Datta (supra) at the

earliest, but positively within a period of six weeks

from the date of communication of a copy of this

order.

The said respondent shall pass a reasoned

order and communicate the same to the petitioner

immediately thereafter.

The petitioner is directed to forward a copy of

his representation dated 8th April, 2021 along with all

supporting documents in his favour as well as copy of

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the matter of Aparesh Chandra Datta

(supra) to the aforesaid respondent at the time of

communicating the order of this Court.

In the event the aforesaid respondent is of the

opinion that the petitioner is entitled to receive

pension, then necessary consequential steps shall be

taken by the concerned respondent(s) at the earliest.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on completion of

usual formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)