Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ms. Mili Saha..........For The vs Bithika Bagchi ( Gupta) on 14 March, 2019
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
14.03.19
sd.
W.P. 64 (W) of 2019
Mr. Bidyut Kr. Halder,
Ms. Mili Saha..........For the Petitioner.
Mr. B.P. Vaisya,
Ms. Sangeeta Roy....For the Council.
Mr. Joytosh Majumder,
Mr. Pinaki Dhole,
Ms.Kakali Samaajpati,
Ms. Reshmi Ghosh....For the State.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the impugned
order dated 16.11.2018 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Primary
Education, Calcutta thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer for getting benefit
under notification no. 749 SE(L) /55-56/13 (pt-v) dated 13.06.2014 .
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that earlier petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court therefor
getting benefit under GPF Scheme. That writ petition being No. 10540(W) of 2018 was disposed of 0n 20.09.2018
thereby directing the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's representation to grant GPF Scheme benefit to the
petitioner thereby disposing the petitioner's representation dated 6th June, 2018. Accordingly a hearing was conducted by the District Inspector of Schools, ( P.E ), Kolkata. A reasoned order was passed on 16.11.2018. Hence, the present writ petition.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner has already opted for contributory Provident Fund as per Government Memo No. 136 Edn (B) dated 15.5.1986. The petitioner has already exercise his option on 29th June, 1993 thereby submitting option form under Memo No. 136 Edn (B) dated 15.5.1986.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner furthermore submits that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 6,17,000/- approximately @ 6% interest towards Provident Fund and also deposited 2256/- his own contribution towards P.F. . Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of GPF Scheme. Unfortunately, that has been denied by the impugned order. Accordingly, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that court should quash the impugned order dated 16.11.2018, thus directing the respondent authority to extend the benefit of GPF scheme to the petitioner. 2
Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has already exercise his option on 29th June, 1993 under memo No. 136 Edn (B) 15.5.1986 for contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity. Therefore, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 6,17,000/- approximately towards interest @ 6%.
Learned Government Pleader further contends that there is no nexus regarding exercise of option under memo No. 136 Edn ( B) 15.5.1986 for contributory Provident Fund for getting the benefit of GPF Scheme.
Mr. Majumder further contends that before the retirement pursuant to the Hon'ble Special Bench order , all the teachers were directed through public notice for exercising their option from C.P.F to G.P.F. Accordingly, the notification being No. 749 dated 13th June, 2014 was issued . Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to avail the same, though the petitioner retired on 30th September, 2016. Therefore, at this juncture, the petitioner is not entitled to enjoy benefit at GPF Scheme as he failed to exercise option within the stipulated period. . In support of his contention Mr. Majumder relied on an unreported Hon'ble Division Bench decision passed on 23rd August, 2017:
( MAT 1559 of 2016 with CAN 8613 of 2016 With CAN 8614of 2016) The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Vs Bithika Bagchi ( Gupta).
Considering the above submissions and considering the notifications as well as decision of the Special Bench , I find that in the year 1993 , the petitioner only exercised option for contributory Provident Fund . But unfortunately, the petitioner never exercise option for CPF to GPF scheme under notification dated 13th June, 2014. Though admittedly he was very much in service. Therefore, at this juncture in my considered view, the court cannot direct the authority to give benefit of GPF scheme to the petitioner since the petitioner failed to avail the option.
Accordingly, on the basis of the above discussion, in my considered view, there is no ambiguity or illegality or infirmity in the order dated 16.11.2018, which deserves interference by this court. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of usual formalities.3
( Samapti Chatterjee, J )