Smt. Sanjukta Bhattacharya vs Kolkata Metropolitan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4228 Cal

14.07.2022           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  DL-4              CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   (PP)                   APPELLATE SIDE

                           WPA 8892 of 2016

                   Smt. Sanjukta Bhattacharya
                               Vs.
          Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.


                  Mr. Udayan Chakravarty,
                  Ms. Nilanjana Dasgupta,
                  Ms. Smruti Rekha Das
                                                 ....for the petitioner.
                  Mr. Abhishek Sarkar
                                                         ....for KMDA.
                  Mr. Tulsidas Ray
                                                     ...for the State.


                  After    repeated     adjournments,      the     State

             respondents    have      been   able   to   produce    the

Notification dated 30th March, 1976, bearing No.2567-

F. However, the Memo, bearing No.3556-F dated 7th

July, 1964 is yet to be produced.

The husband of the petitioner had served the

College of Ceramic Technology under Education

Department, Government of West Bengal between 3rd

April, 1963 and 28th May, 1974, that is, prior to the

Notification dated 30th March, 1976, bearing No.2567-

F came into operation.

The issue involved is the benefit receivable to the

petitioner's husband for his service rendered between

1963 and 1974 with College of Ceramic Technology as

he was permanently absorbed in Kolkata Metropolitan

Development Authority (in short "KMDA") after his

resignation was accepted on 28th May, 1974. There is

no dispute about the payment of benefits to the

petitioner's husband for the period he worked with

KMDA. The dispute remains with regard to the

service of the petitioner's husband for about 11 years

with the State Government. The State respondents

relied upon the provision of Rule 189A of the West

Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit)

Rules, 1971 (in short "DCRB Rules") as a ground of

disentitlement of the petitioner's husband to get the

benefits for that period which came into operation

only after the amendment was brought by the

Notification dated 30th March, 1976, bearing No.2567-

F.

The disqualification for pension as provided

under Regulation 189A (xi)(3) was, therefor, not there

at the time when the petitioner's husband served the

State Government as its employee. The provision of

Regulation 33 as relied upon by the State

respondents is also not attracted in the case of the

petitioner's husband as he had resigned with proper

permission for another appointment in a State

controlled body, which is not treated as a resignation

from public service under Regulation 33(2) of DCRB

Rules, 1971.

This Court has not been shown anything else

which disqualifies the petitioner's husband from

receiving pension for the service he rendered as a

State Government employee, despite ample

opportunity being given to the State respondents.

On the contrary, the Higher Education

Department, Government of West Bengal, though was

obliged to pass on the monetary benefits available to

the petitioner's husband to KMDA for disbursing the

same treating the petitioner's husband to be in

continuous service from 3rd April, 1963, did not pay

the same, as a result whereof the KMDA paid the

benefits as per KMDA DCRB Rules for the period

between 29th May, 1974 and 31st October, 2000,

when the petitioner's husband retired. The

petitioner's husband was, therefor, deprived of the

benefits for the period between 3rd April, 1963 and

28th May, 1974.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I direct

the State respondents to pay the benefits of pro-rata

pension available to the petitioner's husband for the

period between 3rd April, 1963 and 28th May, 1974,

which has accrued between 1st November, 2000 and

24th July, 2020 (being the date of death of the

petitioner's husband) to the petitioner within a period

of four months from date. The principal sum shall

carry interest @ 6% per annum from 1st November,

2000 since the petitioner's husband retired on 31st

October, 2000, till the actual payment.

The petitioner's husband had filed this writ

petition and had died during its pendency. Although,

the writ petition has been filed in 2016, I do not find

any inordinate delay for which the claim can be

rejected as it was a continuous cause on being

deprived of the benefit in each month. Interest is also

payable in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment

reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627 (Dr. A. Selvaraj Vs.

C.B.M. College & Ors.). The rate of interest is also

fair and transparent and as permissible in terms of

the judgment reported in (2021) 11 SCC 543 (State

of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi

Kameswari)

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

The parties shall act on the basis of a server

copy of this order without insisting upon production

of a certified copy thereof.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance

of necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)