Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 840 Cal

03.   25.02.2022
      Ct. No.06
      Tanmoy
                                      M.A.T. 343 of 2019

                    Sri Gouridas Maji, since deceased, substituted by
                    his legal heirs and representatives, Prabir Maji &
                                            Ors.
                                          -Versus-
                             The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                                (Through Video Conference)


                   Mr. Prabir Maji (in-person)

                                     ...for the appellants.

                   Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. G.P.,
                   Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Adv.,
                   Mr. Avishek Prasad, Adv.

                                     ...for the State respondents.

This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner

against a judgment and order dated July 19, 2018

whereby W.P. No. 30581(W) of 2017 was dismissed.

The writ petitioner was the Secretary of a Gram

Panchayat. He retired from service at the age of fifty

eight years in 1993. The prevailing policy of the State

Government at that time was that employees of Gram

Panchayats would retire at the age of fifty eight years.

The writ petitioner approached the learned Single

Judge twenty four years after retirement saying that

after his retirement, the Government Policy changed

and retirement age of Gram Panchayat Secretaries was

raised to sixty years. He should be given the benefit of

such extended age of retirement and his pensionary

benefits should be re-fixed on such basis. He relied on

two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted by

the learned Single Judge.

The learned Judge held that there was no

illegality on the part of the Administration in

intelligibly classifying two classes of retirees separated

by distinct time periods.

The learned Judge further recorded that the writ

petitioner retired much before the change of

Government Policy and after so many years, no relief

could be granted to him. Finally, the learned Judge

observed that indulgence by Court on such conduct

would not only defeat established policy, but would

lead to a ballooning of similar vexatious litigation.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner is before us.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The writ petitioner has approached this Court

seventeen years after his retirement. He claims an

equitable relief. It is well-established that delay defeats

equity. Even otherwise, we do not see how he can

claim the benefit of the extended retirement age, he

having retired much before the retirement age was

raised by the Administration. We find no infirmity in

the judgment and order under appeal.

The appeal being M.A.T. 343 of 2019 is

accordingly dismissed.

Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order,

if applied for, be supplied to learned Advocates for the

parties upon compliance with all usual formalities.

(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)