Gadadhar Paul vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1031 Cal

Form No.J(2)

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                          APPELLATE SIDE
Present :

The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

                             WPA 26505 of 2022

                                 Gadadhar Paul
                                       Vs.
                         The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the petitioner   :      Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta
                            Mr. Arka Nandi
                            Ms. Dipa Acharyya
                            Mr. Sutirtha Nayek
                            Ms. Shalini Ghosh

For the State        :      Mr. Arun Kumar Roy
                            Mr. Arun Kumar Saha.


Heard on             :      08.02.2023

Judgment on          :      08.02.2023


Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:


1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 4,

5, 6 and 7.

3. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, praying for

a direction upon the respondent no.8, being the Certificate

Officer, to, in effect, dispose of the certificate case pending before

him.

4. The petitioner says that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Teacher in Rishra Vani Bharati School, presently renamed as

Aditya Birla Vani Bharati (Higher Secondary English Medium

School) (hereinafter referred to as the "said school"), sometime in

the year 1968 and was superannuated on/or about 7th November,

2006. The petitioner says that despite putting 38 years of service,

since the school authority did not make payment of the gratuity

to the petitioner, the petitioner along with two other assistant

teachers of the aforesaid school, had approached this Hon'ble

Court by filing a writ application which was registered as W.P. No.

30808 (W) of 2014. It is at the intervention of this Court, that the

school authority had disbursed a sum of Rs.1,09,113/- in favour

of the petitioner. The petitioner says that since the school

authorities had disbursed the gratuity which was admitted by

them, the petitioner had thereafter approached the Controlling

Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter

referred to as the "said Act") for determination and realisation the

balance amount.

5. On contested hearing, the Controlling Authority was inter alia

pleased to determine after giving credit to the amount already

disbursed in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled

to a gratuity amounting to Rs.7,33,243/- from the school

authorities. Such fact would corroborate from the notice for

payment of gratuity in Form 'R' dated 25th February, 2022 issued

by the Controlling Authority under the said Act, whereby the

school authorities were called upon to make payment of sum of

Rs.3,05,518/- to the petitioner along with admissible interest

thereon. Since the school authorities, despite notice, did not

disburse the gratuity, at the instance of the petitioner, the

Controlling Authority was inter alia pleased to issue a certificate

under Section 8 of the said Act and the same was remitted to the

office of the respondent no.8 for execution. By drawing attention

of this Court to a notice dated 29th July, 2022, which is at page

33 to the writ application, it is submitted that the respondent

no.8 instead of executing the certificate by a four-page letter had

called upon the Certificate Officer to appropriately clarify under

what circumstances the certificate had been issued, as according

to the certificate officer the petitioner had already received the

gratuity amount.

6. Mr. Nandi, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits

that the said letter was issued in response to an objection filed by

the school authorities. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner

that the Controlling Authority has since by a communication in

writing dated 16th August, 2022 has already clarified the position

that the determination had been made under Section 7 of the said

Act and the certificate having been issued under Section 8

thereof, the Controlling Authority has no further jurisdiction to

entertain any further objection in that regard. Mr. Nandi, by

referring to another letter dated 6th September, 2022 which is at

page 38 of the writ application submits that the Certificate Officer

instead of executing the certificate has once again purported to

call upon the Deputy Director of Secondary Education (GA) to

look into the matter and has sought for his instructions. The

petitioner says that the Certificate Officer has no jurisdiction to

question the certificate issued under Section 8 of the said Act.

The Certificate Officer is only required to execute the said

certificate. He says that the petitioner is 77 years old person and

unless the certificate proceeding is disposed of expeditiously, the

petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

7. Mr. Roy, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the

respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9. Mr. Roy submits that the

Certificate Officer is bound to execute the certificate in

accordance with law.

8. Heard the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the materials on record. I find

that at present the determination has already been made under

the provisions of the said Act. Admittedly, no appeal has been

preferred by the school authorities. I also find that the certificate

under Section 8 the said Act has already been issued and the

same has been remitted to the office of the respondent no.8 for

execution. It would, however, appear from the record that the

Certificate Officer instead of disposing of the said certificate

proceedings has proceeded to seek clarification from the

Controlling Authority as also from the Deputy Director of

Secondary Education (GA). In my view, the Certificate Officer has

exceeded his jurisdiction in not only seeking clarification from the

Controlling Authority but also from the Deputy Director of

Secondary Education (GA), for disposal of the certificate case. It

would appear that the said Act does not independently provide for

a mode of recovery. However, the same provides that in the event

the certificate is issued by the Controlling Authority under

Section 8 of the said Act, it is for the collector to recover the

amount indicated in the certificate from the certificate debtor. The

provisions of the said Act do not empower the Certificate Officer,

who is a collector, to seek for further clarification either from the

Controlling Authority or from the Deputy Director of Secondary

Education (GA) for the purpose of disposing of the certificate case

on the basis of objections raised by the certificate debtor. I am of

the opinion that if the certificate debtors being the school

authorities, were so aggrieved they could have filed an appeal

before the Appellate Authority constituted under the said Act. No

appeal appears to have been filed by certificate debtors till date.

As such, without challenging the aforesaid determination made by

the Controlling Authority, the certificate debtors cannot frustrate

the certificate issued under Section 8 of the said Act.

9. In the facts stated above, I am of the view that the present writ

application can be disposed of by directing the respondent no.8,

to forthwith dispose of the certificate case pending before him

without calling for further clarification either from the Controlling

Authority or from the Deputy Director of Secondary Education

(GA). The Certificate Officer shall consider the objection, if any,

raised by the certificate debtors, being the school authorities, that

is the respondent nos. 4 to 6 herein and shall dispose of the same

in accordance with law. I, however, make it clear that I have not

gone into the question of validity or invalidity of the determination

made by the Controlling Authority.

10. Since the petitioner is 77 years old person, it is expected that

the Certificate Officer shall dispose of the certificate proceeding as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three

months from the date of communication of this order without

granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

11. With the above observations, the writ application, being WPA

26505 of 2022 is disposed of.

12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb