Annapurna Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2512 Cal

29 26.03.2021
Sc
                                    W.P.A. 6203 OF 2021
                                      ----------------------

(Through Video Conference) ,

Annapurna Mondal Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

,,

Mr. Chandan Dutta .... For the Petitioner Mr. Joytosh Majumdar Ms. Kakali Samajpaty Mr. Sayan Ganguly.

.... For the State

T

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is

aggrieved by an order dated February 1, 2021, passed by

the Principal Secretary, School Education Department in

relation to rejection of the petitioner's claim for condoning

the delay in exercising switch over option from CPF-cum-

Gratuity to GPF-cum-Pension Scheme after the stipulated

time of ninety days as per G.O. No. 496 -Edn.(B), dated

16.12.1991.

2. By an order dated March 13, 2020, a coordinate

Bench of this High Court had directed the Principal

Secretary, School Education Department to take a

decision with regard to the above issue. An order was

passed by the Principal Secretary, School Education

Department dated September 16, 2020, wherein

considering the fact that there was only one day's delay

for submission of the switch over because of the fact that

the last date was a Sunday, the matter was referred by

the Principal Secretary, School Education Department to

the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal

considering the case as a very special and rare case.

Subsequently, by an order dated February 1, 2021 the

Principal Secretary, School Education Department had

rejected the condonation sought.

3. Mr. Joytosh Majumdar, learned Government

Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State has submitted

that the petitioner had an option of re-exercising his

option after the passing of the order by the Special Bench

in the matter of District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata

& Anr. -Vs.- Abhijit Baidya & Ors., reported in 2013 (3)

CLJ (Cal) 178. He also submitted that the petitioner did

not exercise that option again and therefore, there is no

scope for any condonation of delay.

3. I have heard counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the materials on records. I find from

the records that the petitioner has exercised her option in

the year 1992 itself with a delay of one day and this was

the issue to be decided by the Principal Secretary, School

Education Department. In fact, the Principal Secretary,

School Education Department found this to be a good

case and, accordingly, referred it to the Finance

Department, Government of West Bengal for

consideration of the same as a rare and special case.

However, in spite of the fact that the hundreds of people

were allowed to make fresh applications after the

judgment passed in Abhijit Baidya & Ors. (supra) in the

year 2014, the Finance Department, Government of West

Bengal was of the opinion that the delay of one day, that

too because of the last date being a Sunday, was not a

good reason for allowing the condonation for the

petitioner.

4. In my view, the decision of the Finance

Department, Government of West Bengal subsequently

conveyed to the petitioner by the Principal Secretary,

School Education Department, is without basis in law,

the factual matrix should have been considered keeping

in mind that the last day was a Sunday. In fact, an

application made on March 16, 1992 would, in fact, be

within time even keeping in mind the Limitation Act. One

need not go in the legal intricacies any further as the case

of the petitioner had been directed to be considered as a

special and rare case, in any case.

5. Accordingly, I direct the Principal Secretary, School

Education Department to condone the delay and allow

the switch over of the petitioner in accordance with law

and issue Pension Payment Order to the petitioner within

a period of ten weeks from date.

6. I make it clear that the above order has been

passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this

case and would not be applicable as a precedent unless

the factual matrix is exactly similar in nature in future

cases.

7. With the above direction, the writ petition is

disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

8. Since no affidavit-in-opposition is called for, the

allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to

have been admitted.

9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

necessary formalities.

(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)