Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
( Dipak Kumar Misra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors. ) on 17 July, 2013
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
(23) 17.07.2013 W. P. No. 14479 (W) of 2011
ah
( Dipak Kumar Misra -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. )
Mr. Parimal Kumar Dwari,
Mr. Prasanta Behari Mahato
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Ram Mohan Pal ... for the State-respdts.
By order dated December 13, 2011 a learned Single
Judge of this Court granted liberty to the respondents
to file affidavit-in-opposition. Today when the matter was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and the respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition.
By this writ petition the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the entitled pension, gratuity and other benefits to which he is entitled to within a stipulated period of time and for other relief.
The case of the petitioner is that he was a Teacher of Jagannathpur High School in the District - Purba Medinipur, and he joined his service on February 13, 1976 and retired on January 31, 2010. At the time of his retirement he was informed by the respondents that the incremental benefit had been wrongly fixed and they had to be returned. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated April 20, 2009 that the petitioner's service had been approved with effect from March 01, 1977 and as an untrained teacher his incremental benefit should be given with effect from March 01, 1988 instead of 2 February 13, 1976. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was financially hard pressed and had entirely to depend upon the pension he had unwillingly aggrieved to refund the said amount. The petitioner submits that after serving the school for more than three decades, he had no other alternative but to accept the unjust demand made by the respondents. But at the same time he has maintained that his actual date of joining the service was on February 13, 1976. As such, the amount which was directed to be refunded as overdrawn by him was actually refunded by the petitioner.
The petitioner states that after receiving the memo by which he was asked to refund the amount alleged to have been overdrawn by him, the school authority had issued a memo on June 30, 2009 about the dispute of the date of the service of the petitioner. The Additional District Inspector of Schools by a memo dated January 28, 2010 informed the school authority with a copy forwarded to the petitioner that the appointment of the petitioner had been approved with effect from March 01, 1976 to February 28, 1977 on post facto basis. According to the petitioner, the post facto approval given by the authority clearly showed that the incremental benefit, which was earlier granted with effect from 1986, would have been appropriate. The 3 petitioner has further assailed the act of the respondents in directing the petitioner to refund the amount by overlooking the letter of post facto approval and that the pension sanction authority cannot direct the petitioner to refund the amount totally ignoring the document of post facto letter.
Mr. Pal, the learned Advocate for the State- respondents has strenuously opposed the submission of Mr. Dwari and submits that by the memo dated April 20, 2009, the respondents have clearly indicated the reasons why they asked the petitioner to refund the amount as his service had not been approved. According to Mr. Pal, after this memo the petitioner cannot have any case and the writ petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard Mr. Dwari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pal, the learned Advocate for the State-respondents and gone through the records. I find sufficient substance in the submissions made by the petitioner. The post facto approval dated January 28, 2010 as annexed to the writ petition being annexure-'P/2" clearly shows that the petitioner's service had been approved with effect from March 13, 1976 on post facto basis.
In such view of it, the petitioner cannot be deprived all the pensionary and other retiral benefits that he had 4 been given. I find no reason why the representation dated August 03, 2011 made on behalf of the petitioner was not considered and the grievances of the petitioner were not redressed in view of the office memo dated January 28, 20`10. In view of what had been provided in the said memo, if the petitioner's service is post facto approved, there was absolutely no reason why the incremental benefits should not be given with effect from February 13, 1976 instead of March 01, 1988 as was sought to be made by the communication dated April 20, 2009. Assuming that when the earlier office memo was issued, the District Inspector of Schools had not issued the subsequent office memo. After the said memo was issued, the respondents had sufficient opportunity to rectify the mistake and to redress the grievances of the petitioner they have not been done so. The petitioner who retired as a teacher has been compelled to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
I dispose of the writ petition by directing the Secretary, Department of School Education, to take steps so that the entitled pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner are released within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
5Urgent photostat certified copies of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties as early as possible upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)