Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pabitra Kumar Mistry vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 February, 2022
15.02.2022
SL No. 4
Court No. 24
(P.M)
WPA 19064 of 2021
Pabitra Kumar Mistry
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Saibal Acharya,
Mr. Subhendu Bikash Mukherjee,
Mr. Jagadish Chander Halder
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee,
Ms. Tuli sinha
... for the State
The petitioner is a retired primary school
teacher. He is aggrieved by the reasoned order dated
16th December, 2019 whereby he has been intimated
that he will not be entitled to pension as there is a
shortfall of eleven months and ten days in his
qualifying service.
The petitioner submits that the selection
process for recruitment of primary teachers was
initiated in the year 2006 and the written examination
was conducted in the year 2009. The appointment
letter was ultimately issued in favour of the petitioner,
upon intervention of the Court, on 1st December,
2010. The petitioner retired from service on attaining
his normal age of superannuation on 31st December,
2019. There has been a shortfall in his qualifying
service period of ten years.
2
It has been submitted that there has been no
laches on the part of the petitioner. Had the
appointment letter been issued in his favour in proper
time, the issue of shortfall in qualifying service period
would not have arisen at all.
The petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in the matter of Subhas Chandra
Chakraborty - vs - the State of West Bengal & Ors.
reported in 2013(1) CHN (Cal) 438 paragraph 19 held
that the appellant/petitioner could not join the service
earlier due to the laches and/or lapse on the part of
the respondent authorities in spite of being
empanelled as a successful candidate. Due to the
intervention of this Court, the appellant could join the
service at a belated stage and the Court was pleased to
condone the shortfall of only thirteen days, so that the
petitioner became eligible for pension.
The learned advocate representing the State
respondent submits that the selection process was
initiated in the year 2006 but the same got entangled
in various litigations. The delay that has been caused
was not deliberate and the respondents ought not to
be made responsible for the same.
Admittedly, it has been submitted by both the
parties that the selection process got held up due to
the several litigations challenging the same. The
petitioner was ultimately issued the letter of
appointment on 1st December, 2010. The petitioner on
the date of receipt of the letter of appointment came to
know that he would not qualify for pension as the
tenure to attain the qualifying service period was not
left with him. During his entire service tenure the
petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to
the delay in issuance of the letter of appointment in
his favour. He waited till attaining his normal age of
superannuation and when his prayer for grant of
pension stood rejected, he approached this Court
praying for condoning the shortfall in his qualifying
service tenure.
The delay which has been caused in issuing the
letter of appointment was not because of laches on the
part of the respondent authorities. Cause of delay is
primarily the litigations that were filed challenging the
selection process. The respondents ought not to be
held responsible for the same. Accordingly, directing
the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner even
though there is a shortfall of more than eleven months
in his qualifying service period will not be proper.
The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in
the case of Subhas Chandra Chakraborty (supra) will
not be applicable in the facts of the present case
primarily because the shortfall in the case of Subhas
Chandra Chakraborty (supra) was only thirteen days
whereas in the present case it is more than eleven
months.
No provision of law has been shown before this
Court according to which, the period of shortfall of
more than six months in the qualifying service period
can be condoned by the respondents.
In view of the above, no relief can be granted to
the petitioners in the instant case. The writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on completion of
usual formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
