Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sk. Asgar Ali vs State Of West Bengal & 0Rs on 13 July, 2015
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
Sl. July 13,
217. 2015 High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P. 1646 (W) of 2015
Sk. Asgar Ali
Versus
State of West Bengal & 0rs.
Mr. Salil Kumar Maiti,
...for the petitioner.
An affidavit of service is filed; let the same be kept on record. In spite of
service, no one appears on behalf of the respondents, when the matter is called on.
This is a third writ petition on behalf of the writ petitioner alleging non- payment of arrear salaries for the extended period of service as also non-payment of his pensionary benefits.
The first approach by the writ petitioner was by W.P. 16998 (W) of 2012, which was disposed of by an order dated August 23, 2012 directing the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur, to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner dated May 26, 2012 by passing a reasoned order thereon. Such representation was disposed of in the negative.
The writ petitioner had assailed the said order of the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur, in W.P. 8284 (W) of 2013. The second writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated August 19, 2014 by directing the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur, to consider the claim of the writ petitioner afresh on the basis of the documents as annexed to the writ petition and as referred to in the said judgment and order, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and the school authorities and by passing a reasoned order. The judgment and order dated August 19, 2014 noted that there were documents existing in support of the claim of the writ petitioner that he had rendered services upto the age of 65 years.
The District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur, by his memo dated November 25, 2014, has negated the claim of the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ petitioner had rendered services for a period which was not approved by the concerned authorities. Therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to arrear pay and allowances for the unapproved period of service. The unapproved period of services of the writ petitioner has been identified by the District Inspector of Schools to be between July 1, 1996 and October 14, 1999.
I find that the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur, in the impugned memo dated November 25, 2014, did not take into consideration the documents annexed to W.P. 8284 (W) of 2013 to arrive at his findings. The judgment and order dated August 19, 2014 passed in W.P. 8284 (W) of 2013 required the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur, to take into consideration the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of the documents as annexed to the writ petition and as referred to in the said judgment and order. Not having done so, the impugned order cannot be upheld. That apart the reasoning advanced by the District Inspector of Schools in denying the claim of the writ petitioner cannot be sustained also.
The writ petitioner had joined the school as a primary teacher on February 19, 1954. On attaining the age of 60 years, that is, after completing his regular service, he had exercised option for extension of service. On the basis of such options being exercised by the writ petitioner from time to time, he was allowed to continue in the concerned post till his attaining the age of 65 years, that is, till October 23, 1999. The writ petitioner claims that he had served till October 31, 1999. There are documents in support of such claim annexed to the writ petition.
The writ petitioner had attained the age of 60 years on October 24, 1994. He was allowed to work thereafter. Salary was paid to the writ petitioner, admittedly, till June 30, 1996. By the order impugned in the writ petition, it is claimed that there was no approval for the period from July 1, 1996 till October 14, 1999.
Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, being the attendance registrar of the writ petitioner, establishes that the writ petitioner had attended the school till October 31, 1999. The school authorities allowed the writ petitioner to discharge his duties till October 31, 1999. Although he has not been issued any formal letter of approval for the period from October 25, 1994 till June 30, 1996 for which period the petitioner was paid his salaries, the writ petitioner had continued to discharge his duties as a teacher from July 1, 1996 till October 31, 1999 in the same post and in the same manner as he had been doing for the period from October 25, 1994 to June 30, 1996. The authorities had allowed him to work. The authorities should not be permitted to contend that the period was unapproved.
Annexure P-1 to the writ petition being the service book of the writ petitioner establishes that the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Sutahata South Circle in the district of Purba Medinipur, had approved the leave taken by the writ petitioner till October 31, 1999. For this reason also, it cannot be said the services of the writ petitioner for the period from July 1, 1996 till October 31, 1999 to be unapproved.
Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated November 25, 2014 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Purba Medinipur, is perverse and the same is, therefore, set aside.
The writ petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from July 1, 1996 till October 31, 1999. The writ petitioner is, also, entitled to pension and other retiral benefits taking into consideration that the writ petitioner had rendered his services till October 31, 1999.
All relevant authorities are, therefore, directed to disburse the arrear salaries of the writ petitioner for the period from July 1, 1996 till October 31, 1999 and also to disburse the pension and other retiral benefits to the writ petitioner taking into consideration that the writ petitioner had rendered his services till October 31, 1999. The disbursal of arrear salaries and payment of retiral benefits after recalculation, as aforesaid, to the writ petitioner shall be completed by the relevant authorities within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of without, however, any order as to costs.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.
( Debangsu Basak, J. ) dns