Parimalendu Banerjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1492 Cal

  26
sandip
Ct. 18
28.02.2023
                             W.P.A. 17522 of 2022

                           Parimalendu Banerjee
                                   Vs.
                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.

             Mr. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman,
             Mr. Pankaj Halder,
             Mr. Tapas Manna            ... For the petitioner.

             Mr. L. K. Gupta, Sr. Adv.,
             Mr. Ranjay De,
             Mr. B. Banerjee    ... For the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy, Mr. Debapriya Chatterjee ... For the State.

The petitioner was an approved Assistant Teacher of

Sarisha Ramkrishna Mission Siksha Mandir and has retired

from his service on superannuation on May 31, 1997.

The petitioner is alleging that though initially he was a

member of the contributory provident fund- cum-gratuity

(CPF) scheme but in terms of the Memorandum bearing No.

496-Edn(B)/IM-39/31 dated December 16, 1991 had opted

for pension including family pension-cum-gratuity (GPF)

scheme and exercised option to the said effect within the

time prescribed by the said memorandum but till date the

authorities have not provided him the benefit of the said

GPF scheme.

Mr. Debbarman, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that his client admittedly had exercised option to

switch over from CPF to GPF scheme within the prescribed

period, nonetheless such option could be exercised by him

afresh within the time extended by the Special Bench of this

Court in the case of DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

(SE), KOLKATA vs. ABHIJIT BAIDYA reported in

2013(3)CHN(CAL) 711 but the petitioner has been

unreasonably denied the benefit of the pension scheme.

Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the school authority submits that to avail the benefit of

the GPF scheme, the petitioner is not only required to

exercise the option to switch over from the CPF scheme to

the said scheme within the prescribed period of time but he

is also required to refund the employer's share of

contribution with interest and additional interest to the

Government, the petitioner did not refund the said

contribution, he continued to deposit his share of the

contribution in his provident fund account, besides the

petitioner, time to time, withdrew money from his provident

fund account.

Mr. Gupta further submits that after the said judgment

of the Special Bench, the school authority had invited the

petitioner to exercise option to switch over from the earlier

the scheme to the new scheme afresh but the petitioner did

not respond.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on

going through the materials-on-record, it appears that the

petitioner though had exercised revised option to avail the

benefit of pension including family Pension-cum-gratuity

within the prescribed period of limitation but did not comply

with the requirement of the aforesaid memorandum dated

December 16, 1991 to refund the employer's share of

contribution with interest and additional interest. The

petitioner also did not respond to the call of the employer to

file option afresh in terms of the said judgment of the Special

Bench of this Court.

The records reveal that in spite of exercising the option

to avail the benefit of the pension scheme, the petitioner and

the school authority continued to deposit their respective

contributions in the said provident fund account, besides

the petitioner time to time withdrew money from his

provident fund account.

The petitioner, for the aforesaid reasons, is not entitled

to the relief as prayed for, consequently W.P.A. 17522 of

2022 is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all

requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)