Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kulesh Chandra Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Appellate Side)
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Reserved on: 04/02/2021
Pronounced on: 26/02/2021
WPST 20 of 2020
Kulesh Chandra Mondal ...Petitioner
Through:-
Mr. B. Nandy, Advocate
...present through VC
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah, Advocate
...present in Court
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. ...Respondent
Through:-
Mr. Joytosh Majumdar, Mr. Raja Saha, and
Mrs. Kakali Samajpati,
... Advocate, present in Court
Coram: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
ORDER
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Order dated July 30, 2019 passed in CCP No.107 of 2017 by the West
Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') is under challenge in the
present petition.
2. The Contempt petition was filed before the Tribunal alleging non-
compliance of the order dated June 8, 2017 passed in O.A. No.209 of 2017. In terms
of the aforesaid order the Original Application filed by the petitioner was disposed of
with a direction to the Director of Youth Service, Government of West Bengal to take
decision on the representation of the petitioner in the light of the Rule 12 of West
Bengal (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Rules').
2 WPST 20 OF 2020
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has
committed error of jurisdiction while not entertaining the contempt petition bearing
CCP No. 209 of 2017 filed by the petitioner as the order dated June 08, 2017 passed
by the Tribunal had not been complied with. In terms of the aforesaid order direction
was issued to the Director of Youth Service, Government of West Bengal to decide
the claim of the petitioner for release of benefits in terms of the Rule 12 of the 1971
Rules. However, the Director had referred the matter to the learned Legal
Remembrancer for guidance. The same was not in terms of the direction issued by the
Tribunal. The Contempt Petition has been wrongly dismissed opining that the order
stood complied with. It was a case of hardship. The provisions of Rule 12 of the 1971
Rules have not been properly appreciated. The petitioner has a family to support.
Hence, he deserves to be granted pension.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that it
is a case in which the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence under
section 302/34 IPC vide judgment of the trial Court dated March 29, 2004. He was
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The matter went upto Hon'ble the Supreme
Court Vide order dated September 07, 2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1172 of
2007 the conviction of the petitioner was converted to section 304 Part-I of IPC and
his sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years of imprisonment. He
remained in Correctional Home for a period of ten years. After suffering the sentence
he prayed for grant of compensatory allowance under Rule 12 of the 1971 Rules.
5. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.Parihar
Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Ors. reported as (1996) 6 SCC 291, it was argued that the
merits of the order cannot be gone into by the Contempt Court once compliance
report has been filed. In the case in hand, the petitioner cannot claim any
3 WPST 20 OF 2020
compassionate allowance when he has been convicted for murder. The writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper book.
7. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the
Tribunal whereby the Contempt Petition filed by him alleging non-compliance of the
order dated June 8, 2017 in O.A. No. 209 of 2017 was dismissed with the observation
that the order stood complied with. This Court at present is not going into the issue
regarding maintainability of the writ petition against order of dismissal of the
contempt petition.
8. The basic fact which is in dispute is that the petitioner was convicted
under Section 302 of IPC by the trial Court vide judgment dated March 29, 2004. He
challenged the same by filing appeal and finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.1172 of 2007 sentenced the petitioner under Section 304 Part-I
instead of Section 302 of IPC. His sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 10
years imprisonment. It is the admitted fact that often suffering the sentence the
petitioner was released from Correctional Home on September 20, 2012. He was
dismissed from service vide order dated April 12, 2013, with effect from March 29,
2004, the date of his conviction. The order of dismissal dated April 12, 2013 was
challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A. No.242 of 2015. Amendment was carried
out in the Original Application whereby challenge to the order of dismissal was
withdrawn and only relief sought to be claimed was that compassionate allowance be
paid to the petitioner under the Rule 12 of the 1971 Rules. Such a prayer having not
been made before the competent authority. The Original Application was disposed of
vide order dated June 29, 2016 as premature giving liberty to the petitioner to move
such a representation, if so advised. As is evident from the record, a representation
dated October 05, 2016 was made by the petitioner to the Director of Youth Service,
4 WPST 20 OF 2020
Government of West Bengal for release of compensatory allowance. Alleging that the
same had not been disposed of, O.A. No. 209 of 2017 was filed before the Tribunal.
The same was disposed of on June 08, 2017 with a direction to the Director of Youth
Service, Government of West Bengal to take decision on the representation filed by
the petitioner. In compliance of the aforesaid order a communication dated September
06, 2018 was sent to the petitioner along with an order passed by the Director on
September 04, 2018, whereby his claim was rejected finding that the petitioner is not
eligible for getting benefit under the Rule 12 of the 1971 Rules.
9. As far as the contempt petition is concerned, in our opinion, the Tribunal
has not gone wrong in opining that the order stood complied with the rejection of the
case of the petitioner. Hence, no contempt was made out. Even, otherwise we do not
find any error in the order of rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of
compassionate allowance. The Rule 12 of the 1971 Rules on which the claim of the
petitioner was based is reproduced hereunder.
"12. Misconduct or inefficiency:-No pension may be
granted to an officer dismissed or removed for misconduct,
insolvency or inefficiency; but to officers so dismissed or removed
compassionate allowance may be granted when they are deserving
of special consideration; provided that the allowance granted to
any officer shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would
have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical
certificate"
A perusal of the aforesaid Rules shows that no pension may be granted to
an officer 'dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency'. But the
officers so dismissed or removed, compensatory allowance may be granted in
deserving cases on special consideration. The case of the petitioner will not fall within
scope of the Rule 12 of the 1971 Rules. His dismissal is not on account of
5 WPST 20 OF 2020
misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency rather it is on account of his conviction under
Section 304 Part-I of IPC. A dismissed employee who has been convicted under
Section 304 Part-I of IPC cannot be heard to claim that some compassion be shown
towards him, when he did not care for life of another person.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present
petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE
(ANIRUDDHA ROY)
JUDGE
Kolkata
26/02/2021
-------------------
PA(SG)
