Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sayeeda Begam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 13 September, 2024
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
40. 13.09.2024
Court No.14
(Tanmoy)
WPA 9420 of 2024
Sayeeda Begam
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rajib Kumar Bose, Adv.,
Mr. Prodyat Kumar Ray, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Ms. Sipra Mazumder, Adv.,
Ms. Prativa Ghatak, Adv.
...for the State.
Mr. Gourav Das, Adv.
...for DPSC, South 24 Parganas.
1. The petitioner is a retired primary school
teacher. She has been held to be ineligible to receive
pensionary benefits as there is a shortfall in the
qualifying service of ten years.
2. The petitioner was issued letter of
appointment on September 26, 2012 and the Director
of School Education approved the panel containing the
name of the petitioner on July 12, 2012. The petitioner
has a shortfall of ten months and five days in
completing the qualifying service period of ten years.
According to the service rules, six months' shortfall
may be condoned but any period exceeding six months
is not condonable.
3. The petitioner submits that appointment
letter was issued in her favour after she along with
others filed a writ petition before this Court being WP
No. 8387(W) of 2010, which was disposed of by the
2
Court on May 16, 2011, directing the respondent
authority to take steps in the matter within a specified
period of time.
4. The respondent authority decided the issue
long after the time-period stipulated by the Court
expired. Had the authority considered the case of the
petitioner within the time as specified by the Court,
there would not have been any shortfall in the
qualifying service period.
5. It has been submitted that the petitioner
served as Sahayika in the concerned Sishu Siksha
Kendra (SSK) for nearly ten years prior to her
submitting resignation for joining the post of assistant
teacher in the primary school.
6. The petitioner submits that she was in no
way responsible for the delay in issuing the
appointment letter. She will be highly prejudiced if the
deficiency in her qualifying service period is not
condoned.
7. Learned Advocate representing the Council
submits that the process of verification of the
testimonials and documents of the petitioner took a
long time for which there has been a delay in issuing
the appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.
8. The appointment letter could not have been
issued without verification of the documents. There was
no intentional delay on the part of the Council in
issuing the appointment letter in favour of the
petitioner. The appointment letter was issued only after
the panel was approved by the Director of School
Education.
9. Learned Advocate representing the State
respondents submits that the prayer for condoning the
shortfall was considered by the Finance Department,
Government of West Bengal and the same has been
turned down as not admissible as per the extant rules.
10. Learned Advocate for the Council relies on a
judgment delivered by this Bench on February 11,
2022, in WPA NO. 27800 of 2017 with IA No:
CAN/1/2019 (Samar Nath Pal & Ors. v. The State of
West Bengal & Ors.) wherein the Court held that -
"Passing any order directing the respondents to pay
pension in favour of the employees who did not qualify
the stipulations laid down in the Scheme, would be
grossly improper and unjust." The order passed in the
writ petition stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in MAT 288 of 2022 (Shri Samar Nath Paul &
Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) vide order
dated May 2, 2022. Prayer has been made for dismissal
of the writ petition.
11. I have heard the submissions made on
behalf of both the parties. It appears that a similar
issue fell for consideration before this Bench in WPA
10763 of 2024 (Bansi Badan Kole v. The State of West
Bengal & Ors.) wherein the Court held that as the
petitioner is in no way responsible for the delay in
issuing the letter of appointment and as the petitioner
was fighting for his rights before the Court of Law, not
allowing his prayer for condoning shortfall in his
qualifying service period will amount to double
jeopardy. The candidate never received his salary for
the period he did not work, nor will he receive his
pension after his retirement for no fault on his part.
12. In the instant case, it appears that the
petitioner had to fight for her rights before the Court of
Law. The Court fixed a time period within which the
respondent authorities ought to have acted. The
authority took far more time than specified by the
Court to act in accordance with the order resulting in
delay in issuance of the letter of appointment in favour
of the petitioner.
13. As the petitioner was in no way responsible
for the delay, accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner
for condoning her shortfall in the qualifying service
period is required to be allowed.
14. The ratio laid down in the matter of Samar
Nath Pal (supra) cannot be made applicable in this case
in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court on 31st October, 2019 in the
matter of Asim Kumar Chakrabarti vs. The State of
West Bengal & Ors. (WPST No. 112 of 2019). Here the
delay was not at all attributable to the petitioner.
15. The impugned order rejecting the prayer of
the petitioner to condone the shortfall in her qualifying
service period is, accordingly, quashed and set aside.
16. The District Inspector of Schools (PE), South
24 Parganas, is directed to grant notional benefits to
the petitioner by treating her to be in service for the
qualifying service period of ten years. It is made clear
that the petitioner will not be entitled to salary for the
period which she did not work and will not be entitled
to any interest on account of delayed payment of her
pension. This relief is being granted to the petitioner
only to ensure that she qualifies for receiving her
pension.
17. The District Inspector of Schools (PE), South
24 Parganas, is directed to process the pension file of
the petitioner and ensure that she receives her pension
at the earliest, but positively within a period of four
months from the date of communication of this order.
18. As the order passed by the Principal
Secretary, School Education Department is being set
aside herein, accordingly, the rejection of the prayer of
the petitioner by the Finance Department ought not to
stand in the way of the pension sanctioning authority
to proceed with the pension file of the petitioner in
accordance with the direction passed hereinabove.
19. The writ petition stands disposed of.
20. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on
compliance of usual legal formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
