Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Srikanta Kumar Jana vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 September, 2021
W.P.A. 14740 of 2021
11 29.09.2021
Ct.05
(Through Video Conference)
rkd
Srikanta Kumar Jana
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya
....for the petitioners.
Mr. Subhabrata Datta,
Mr. Debashis Sarkar,
Mr. Paritosh Sinha
....for the State.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court is taken on
record.
Writ petitioner was an assistant teacher in
a Government aided recognized school who retired
on superannuation on 31st January, 2021. The
grievance of the writ petitioner is that on the date of
superannuation of the writ petitioner he completed
9 years 5 months 29 days service in stead of 10
years service which is according to DCRB Scheme
of 1981 is a precondition for sanction of pension in
favour of the retired assistant teacher working in
Government aided secondary school. It has been
contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that there
was a considerable delay on the part of the
concerned authority while giving appointment to
the writ petitioner. It appears from the interview
letter dated 16th October, 1995 issued to the writ
petitioner that the petitioner was asked to
2
participate in the selection process on 5th
November, 1995. Pursuant to the interview held on
5th November, 1995 a panel was prepared and the
petitioner got aggrieved by preparation of such
panel where the petitioner was not placed at the
first place though according to the petitioner he
should have been positioned at the first place in the
panel in question which triggered filing of the first
writ petition being W.P. 19037(W) of 1997 (Srikanta
Jana -vs- State & Ors.). The said writ petition was
disposed of vide order dated 10th March, 2011
thereby directing the concerned respondent
authorities to take necessary steps with regard to
appointment in the post in question. Pursuant to
the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
10th March, 2011 panel prepared based on
interview held on 5th November, 1995 was recast
wherein the writ petitioner was placed at the first
position. The recast panel was finalized vide Memo
dated 14th July, 2011 which appears from page 23
of the writ petition. The writ petitioner was
appointed as per the said recast panel vide
appointment letter dated 29th July, 2011 and he
joined the post of assistant teacher on 3rd August,
2011. Placing the chronology of facts it is
contended on behalf of the writ petitioner had the
school authority as well as the concerned
respondent authorities would have been more
vigilant to take steps in terms of the recast panel as
contained in Memo dated 14th July, 2011
petitioner's appointment as assistant teacher could
have been made prior to 3rd August, 2011. It also
appears that the order was passed by the Hon'ble
High Court on 10th March, 2011 since the panel
was recast on 14th July, 2011. Prompt action on
the part of the school authority as well as the
concerned State respondent could have made the
writ petitioner eligible to complete 10 years'
continuous service which is one of the conditions
for making an assistant teacher eligible to receive
his or her retiral dues in terms of DCRB Scheme of
1981. Petitioner upon placing reliance on these
facts prays for condonation of period which fell
short in making the writ petitioner eligible to
receive retiral dues.
Mr. Datta, learned advocate appears on
behalf of the State respondents and submits that in
terms of the relevant provision of the DCRB
Scheme of 1981 the writ petitioner is not eligible to
receive retiral dues since the qualifying service of
the writ petitioner fell short of ten years. In addition
thereto by placing the judgement of the Division
Bench dated 28th May, 2021 which has already
been relied upon by Mr. Bhattacharya, while
advancing argument on behalf of the writ
petitioner, it has been submitted by Mr. Datta that
in case of the writ petitioner/respondent in MAT
1917 of 2019 there was delay of 26 days whereas
the period which fell short in the case of the writ
petitioner in the present case is six months one
day. Therefore this judgment passed in MAT 1917
of 2019 (The State of West Bengal -vs- Rabindra
Nath Ghosh) may not be applicable in case of the
writ petitioner.
This Court has considered submissions
made on behalf of the learned advocates
representing the parties and finds in apposite to
give direction to the Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Government of West
Bengal, respondent no.2, to take decision on the
eligibility of the writ petitioner to receive retiral
dues upon condoning the period which fell short of
qualifying service of ten years in view of the facts
which have been discussed above within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of communication of
this order. It is also directed by this upon the
respondent no.2 to follow the observations made by
the Hon'ble Division Bench in the judgement dated
28th May, 2021 passed in MAT 1917 of 2019
Rabindra Nath (Supra) while taking decision on
this issue. Such decision is to be taken after
granting opportunity of hearing to the writ
petitioner and the school authority where the
petitioner was serving prior to his retirement. The
decision to be taken by the respondent no.2 shall
be communicated to the writ petitioner within two
weeks thereafter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act in terms of server copy
of the order downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order,
if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
