Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Baidyanath Mukherjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 August, 2015
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
24.08.2015
S.L.-25(KB)
W.P. 17841 (W) of 2015
Sri Baidyanath Mukherjee
versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee
Mr. Subhrangshu Panda
Mr. Syed Nurul Arefin
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Jahar Lal De
Mr.Somnath Banerjee
... For the State respondents.
Mr. S. K. Bhattacharyya
... For the respondent nos.6 & 7.
.
This writ application has been preferred challenging the denial of the respondents to refund an amount of Rs.54,394.22 p. to the petitioner and the inaction on the part of the respondents to grant the benefits of revised pension @ Rs.31,500/- with effect from 1st January, 2006 and the arrear amounts towards gratuity and leave salary.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the service statement at page 22 of the writ application, Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner 2 submits that the petitioner entered into service on 1st March, 1960 and retired from the post of Principal at B. B. College, Asansol on 30th November, 1995 after having rendered continuous service for more than thirty five years nine months. For the purpose of counting of past service rendered in the University of Burdwan, towards pensionary benefits, the petitioner was instructed by the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.54,394.22 p. and the petitioner duly paid the said amount, as would be explicit from the document at page 23 of the writ application. Subsequent thereto, by a memorandum dated 10th June, 2010 the petitioner was again asked to deposit an amount of Rs.79,829/- as pension contribution pertaining to the period during which the petitioner rendered his services under the University of Burdwan, as would be explicit from the document at page 24 of the writ application.
Mr. Chatterjee submits that as the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.54,394.22 p., he prayed for adjustment of the said amount from the amount of Rs.79,829/-. Such prayer was not responded to by the authorities and as such the petitioner was constrained to again deposit the entire amount of 3 Rs.79,829/- and that as such the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.54,394.22 p. deposited earlier.
Further grievance of the petitioner is that though on the basis of Government Orders pertaining to revision of pension the petitioner was entitled to pension of an amount of Rs.31,500/- with effect from 1st January, 2006, the respondent authorities fixed the petitioner's revised pension @ Rs.23,700/- with effect from 1st January, 2006, as would be explicit from the documents at pages 35 and 37 of the writ application.
Mr. Chatterjee further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to an amount of arrear gratuity and arrear leave salary which have been withheld and the representations made to the respondent authorities to consider the fixation of pension at Rs.31,500/- with effect from 1st January, 2006 and for release of the arrear gratuity and arrear leave salary and the amount of Rs.54,394.22 p. have not been responded to.
Mr. De, learned senior counsel appearing for the State respondents submits that the petitioner's revised pension was fixed on the basis of the calculation as made by the office of the Accountant General and that the entire 4 amount of gratuity and leave salary has already been paid to the petitioner.
Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 submits that the calculation towards revised pension has been made on the basis of the records and that there is no infirmity in such calculation.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record.
It is explicit from the documents at pages 23 and 24 of the writ application that the petitioner was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.54,394.22 p. under the Head of Account "0071 Contributions & recoveries towards pension and other retirement benefits" pertaining to the period from 2nd April, 1985 to 4th March, 1991 and the said amount was duly deposited by the petitioner on 6th December, 2004.
From the document at page 24 it is explicit that the petitioner was again asked to deposit an amount of Rs.79,829/- under identical Head of Account "pension contribution" pertaining to the same period from 2nd April, 5 1985 to 4th March, 1991 and the petitioner duly deposited the said amount on 20th July, 2010.
No record has been produced before this Court to show that the amounts of Rs.54,394.22 p. and Rs.79,829/- which were deposited by the petitioner pertains to different periods and different heads. As such from the records it appears that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs.54,394.22 p. from the State respondents.
In such conspectus of facts, I direct the State respondents, particularly the respondent no.5 to pay the amount of Rs.54,394.22 p. to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
If for any pressing reason, disbursement of the said amount of Rs.54,394.22 p. cannot be made by the State respondents in favour of the petitioner, a reasoned decision to that effect must be communicated to the petitioner immediately.
Records further reveal that the petitioner's representation pertaining to fixation of revised pension and towards disbursement of amounts of arrear gratuity and arrear leave salary has not been attended to by the 6 respondents. In my opinion, the said issue needs to be relegated to the appropriate authority for consideration.
Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to make a detailed representation incorporating his claim towards fixation of pension at Rs.31,500/- with effect from 1st January, 2006 and for grant of consequential benefits and for release of the arrear gratuity and arrear leave salary, to the respondent no.7 within a period of two weeks from date.
Upon receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the said respondent no.7 shall consider the same and shall pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law and shall communicate the said order to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation.
Needless to observe, in the event such claim of the petitioner deserves acceptance, necessary follow up steps shall be taken by the respondents without any further delay.
With the above observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 7 Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)