Calcutta High Court
Rama Shankar Tripathi vs The State Of W.B on 14 July, 2008
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
G.A.No.1278 of 2005
WP No. 2268 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
RAMA SHANKAR TRIPATHI Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
THE STATE OF W.B. Defendant/Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.Shaibal Acharya, Advocate with Mrs.S.Chakraborty, Advocate. For Respondents :Mr.SK Oli Mohammed, Sr. Advocate with Mrs.B.Gupta,Advocate. For school authority : Mrs. Santi Das, Advocate.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Date : 14th July, 2008.
The Court : Heard the learned advocates for the parties. The writ petitioner was an Assistant Teacher of Shree Didoo Maheswari Panchayat Vidyalaya, an educational institution in Kolkata. In the writ petition he has prayed for directions upon the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata, respondent no.4 to release his pension and gratuity along with interest. Submission has been made that though the petitioner had retired on 31st January, 2002 his pension is yet to be released. The writ petition is opposed by the State by filing affidavit. It has been contended that the original option form was not submitted by the writ petitioner. On behalf of the school authority it has been contended that the option form was duly submitted by the Assistant Teacher, that is, the petitioner in time but on account of some disputes between persons in the management, the said 2 form was retained by a particular person and was not handed over to the Administrator. However, on behalf of the school authority it is submitted that the entire records were placed before the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools certified on 31st August, 1999 that the option form was submitted in time by the respective members of the staff which included the petitioner and those were accepted by the District Inspector of Schools who had confirmed the same which is evident from the Annexure to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on 1st July, 2008 by the school authority. Such submission has been denied and disputed by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. Incidentally, the name of the petitioner appears in serial no.9 of the annexure to the supplementary affidvit. From the said document it appears that the school authority was allowed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata, respondent no.4 to deposit the entire employees' and employer's share of provident fund including interest of all respective members of the staff of the school and the same was accepted by the District Inspector by putting his signature. Therefore, in my view, since it appears from the annexure to the supplementary affidavit that the District Inspector of Schools concerned had allowed the members of the staff to deposit the entire employees' and employer's share of provident fund including interest of the member of the staff which included the petitioner, the contention of the District Inspector of Schools particularly in paragraph-6 of the affidavit in opposition affirmed on 24th December, 2003 cannot be accepted. In this context it may be mentioned that an identical issue was decided in APOT 120 of 2004 (State of West Bengal & Ors.
-vs- Ramji Baru & Ors.) on 15th March, 2005 wherein the Division Bench found that the Administrator of the school submitted the option form and had certified that the option forms were submitted by the respective staff and those were accepted and confirmed by the District Inspector of Schools. Accordingly, the Division Bench restrained the state-respondents from raising any 3 objection in respect of the members of the staff of the school whose option has since been accepted by the District Inspector of Schools. Further, attention has been drawn to the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1927 of 2006 and W.P.No.1454 of 2005 in identical matters.
Perusing the said order of the Division Bench, orders of the learned Single Judges, the relevant records and documents produced by the school authorities, I am convinced that the District Inspector of Schools had accepted the employer's and employees' share of provident fund with compound interest.
Hence, considering the judgement of the Division Bench and of the learned single Judges, in my view, the writ petitioner is entitled to pension as prayed for in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The state-respondents including the respondent nos.2,3,4 & 5 are directed to release pension of the petitioner along with arrears within a period of two months from date together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from the date of retirement till the date of making payment.
The application being G.A.No.1278 of 2005 is also disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of this order on the usual undertakings.
(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) ssah RO(ct)