Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mahadeb Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 26 October, 2017
1
26.10.17
Item No.18
Court No.15
rpan
W.P. No. 15702 (W) of 2016
Mahadeb Pal
- Versus -
The State of West Bengal & Others
Mr. Partha Ghosh
... for the petitioner.
Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy,
Ms. Manika Pandit
... for the State.
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. In spite of service
no one appears on behalf of the State respondents and as such, this Court requests Ms.
Sanghamitra Nandy, learned advocate, who is present in Court, to appear in this matter on behalf of the State respondents. Such engagement of Ms. Nandy be regularised.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the post of assistant teacher of Ukhra Kunja Behari High School on 1st January, 2013. He was not a pension optee under the DCRB Scheme. The dispute, as to whether an incumbent can submit option and switch over to pension-cum- gratuity, was decided by a judgment dated 16th July, 2013 passed by the Hon'ble Special Bench of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Others - Vs. - Abhijit Baidya & Others [APO No.94 of 2009] and it was inter alia directed by the Court that the State Government shall give opportunity to all the petitioners and other employees similarly situated to submit option to switch over to pension-cum-gratuity by issuing public notice and that upon refunding employer's share of contribution the said employees would be entitled to pension. Pursuant to the said order a notification was issued by the School Education Department on 13th June, 2014. In terms of the said memo the petitioner 2 exercised the option and the respondents intimated the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs.5,06,189/- which the petitioner duly deposited on 2nd September, 2014. In spite of payment of the said amount, as intimated, the respondents did not sanction pension on and from the date of refund. Surprisingly, about 6 months thereafter the petitioner was again asked to deposit a further amount of Rs.5506/- which was again deposited by the petitioner on 9th March, 2015.
Mr. Ghosh contends that for the failure on the part of the respondents to intimate the exact amount to be refunded, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and the pensionary benefits ought to have been disbursed in favour of the petitioner on and from 2nd September, 2014. Ventilating such grievance the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent no.3 claiming arrear pension with effect from 2nd September, 2014 together with 18% interest.
Ms. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the total amount of employer's share of contribution with interest and additional interest was finally deposited by the petitioner on 9th March, 2015 and accordingly, the respondents have rightly disbursed the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner with effect from the said date and there is no infirmity in such decision.
The memo dated 13th June, 2014, clearly details the manner in which the amount of refund is to be calculated and also specifies the period within which such refund is required to be made. For the delay on the part of the respondents in intimating the actual amount of refund, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. In the event such delay is attributable to the respondents, question of payment of interest would certainly occasion.
3
Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same needs to be relegated to the respondent no.3, who has not yet decided the petitioner's representation appearing at pages 39 and 40 of the writ petition.
Accordingly, this Court directs the respondent no.3 to consider the petitioner's representation appearing at pages 39 and 40 of the writ petition, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the school authorities and to pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law and to communicate the said order to the petitioner.
The above exercise shall be completed by the said respondent no.3 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)