Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Birendra Nath Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 August, 2016
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
.08.16
cl 20
ab
W.P. 33546(W) of 2014
Birendra Nath Roy
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy,
Mr. Indranath Mitra,
... for the petitioner
Mr. Sumon Sengupta,
... for the Krishnagar Municipality
In spite of direction given on the last occasion, the Municipality has not
filed any report in the form of an affidavit. Considering the urgency involved in
the writ petition, I directed the matter to appear as 'Listed Motion' in the
combined monthly list of August within the first 50 matters. I expected the
Municipality to response with a sense of urgency when the petitioner alleged that
despite retiring in August, 2013, he has not yet received the arrear pension as
well as the interest on gratuity.
The petitioner retired as an 'Upper Division Clerk' of the Krishnanagar
Municipality on August 19, 2013. He alleges, and there is no denial of the same,
that he has not yet received either his arrear pension or interest on gratuity. He
made series of representations which not having produced any result, he had to
come to Court.
I dispose of the writ petition directing the Chairman, Krishnanagar
Municipality, i.e. the respondent No. 6 herein, to consider and dispose of the
representation made by the petitioner on November 19, 2014 which has been 2 annexed to the writ petition at page 33. The respondent No. 6 shall give a hearing to the petitioner and shall dispose of the said representation within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. He shall communicate the decision to be taken by him to the petitioner within a week thereafter.
Mr. Sengupta, the learned advocate for the Krishnanagar Municipality tried to make out a case that the Municipality is running without adequate fund to make the payment of arrear pension or to pay interest on gratuity to the petitioner. The law on the point has been clarified by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated April 27, 2016 (MAT 3540 of 2015).
The Division Bench specifically referred to Section 67 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, whereby a consolidated fund is at the disposal of the Municipality and apart from the State Government, money could be received from various quarters including the contributions in terms of Section 56(1) of the said Act. The Division Bench specifically observed that if the amount contributed by the State Government is not sufficient to meet the salaries and allowances payable by the Municipality, they cannot shift the burden to the Government and say that it is their duty to pay the contribution.
It may be mentioned that even before the said judgement was delivered by the Division Bench, a Single Judge of this Court by an order dated December 16, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 33547(W) of 2014 had also taken a similar view holding, inter alia, that the primary liability to pay the pension lies with the Municipality and such responsibility by the circular sought to be projected on behalf of the Krishnagar Municipality was never shifted. The Rule 31 of the West Bengal (Employees' Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 2003 specifically stated that the pension of an employee shall be paid by the Municipality from its own fund. That apart, the municipal fund as provided in Section 67 of the Municipal Act was also referred to as the money release or releasable under the Act and all moneys received by the Municipality shall be credited to that fund.
3The petitioner is directed to send a copy of the said representation as well as copies of the judgements passed by this Court to the respondent No. 6 while communicating the order of the Court.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti,J)