Dr. Debesh Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4086 Cal

61    08.07                     W.P.A. 13897 of 2017
Ct    2022
21
AGM
                                  Dr. Debesh Pal
                                      Versus
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors


              Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee,
              Mr. Aniruddha Mitra,
                                           ... For the petitioner.


                    It is the second call; the respondents are not

represented.

It appears that no affidavit has been filed by the

respondents in terms of the order dated November 7,

2017, passed in this writ petition.

The petitioner's initial prayer was for approval of his

re-employment after his superannuation from the post of

Reader in Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya.

Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned advocate

representing the petitioner limits the prayer to the extent

of releasing the remuneration of the petitioner from April

1, 2013 to March 31, 2015, for which the petitioner was

re-employed with the approval of the Board of Studies of

the University pursuant to a recommendation dated

January 4, 2013.

Petitioner's case for re-employment, however was

turned down by the Executive Council by two subsequent

resolutions dated July 31, 2011 and August 1, 2014.

It is the case of the petitioner that since his service

has been utilised by the University for the said period

between April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015, he is entitled to

receive re-employment pay for the said period.

In support of his submission, Mr. Chatterjee relied

upon the decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches

of this Court in WPA 6839 of 2021 (Dr. Pranab Kumar

Bandopadhyay vs The State of West Bengal) and in WP

13998 (W) of 2019 (Dr. Sanjoy Kumar Bandopadhyay -vs-

State) with W.P. No. 16448 (W) of 2019 (Bidhan Chandra

Krishi Vidyalaya vs. State ).

The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in said two

decisions held that an employee of the University is

entitled to get remuneration for service rendered by him,

even if, his re-employment was not approved by the State.

He, further, relied upon a judgment of the Supreme

Court reported at (1998) 6 SCC 338 (Ramswaroop

Masawan -vs- Municipal Council) to argue that even if an

employee stood superannuated on the reaching the age

and he continues to serve thereafter, that should be

treated as his re-employment.

In view of the judgments passed by the Co-ordinate

Benches of this Court in somewhat similar facts, I am of

the view that the petitioner shall be entitled to the same

relief.

Accordingly, WPA 13897 of 2017 is disposed of with

a direction upon respondent no. 4 to ascertain whether

the petitioner has served from April 1, 2013 to July 31,

2014 in the University, and if it is found that the

petitioner actually served for the said period, respondent

no.4 will take necessary steps to release the remuneration

of the petitioner for the same. Such exercise shall be

completed within one month from the date of

communication of this order .

( Kausik Chanda, J.)