1. These writ petitions, involving issues of law of frequent occurrence, were heard separately. Inter alia, several decisions of learned Judges of this Court (either sitting in a Division Bench or singly) have been cited on behalf of the petitioners and it has been submitted that the issues of law involved here are no longer res integra; hence I ought to simply follow the same without much ado. The State, while opposing these writ petitions, has submitted that certain very important and relevant aspects were not placed before the concerned Benches on the earlier occasions and the resultant decisions, without noticing such aspects, are subsilentio rulings necessitating a re-look at the issues and further that in the interest of ensuring certainty, consistency and predictability, I ought to refer the same for re-consideration to a Division Bench or to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate larger Bench. Considering such submissions advanced on behalf of the State, I have considered it proper to ascertain the worth thereof and I propose to consider each of the writ petitions separately. However, whatever result is reached in respect of all would be reflected in this common judgment and order.

The writ petitions:

2. W.P. No. 5291(W) of 2014 is at the instance of Sri Tapan Kumar Mandal, who was an Assistant Teacher of Brahman Sasan High School, District Paschim Midnapore. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on September 30, 2005. The Pension Payment Order (hereafter the PPO in short) was issued on the same day, in terms whereof Rs.2,47,434/-was mentioned as the entitlement of Sri Mandal on account of death-cum-retiring gratuity (hereafter gratuity in short). However, it was further mentioned therein that a sum of Rs.44,657/-had been overdrawn by Sri Mandal and he was thus entitled to Rs.2,02,777/- on account of net gratuity. He admits having received the said amount on January 27, 2006. The pleaded case, as appears from paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, is as follows:

“8. That the petitioner states that the petitioner came to know the month of June, 2011 from a relative of his neighbour that one Rebindra (sic Rabindra) Nath Mondal, a retired teacher is moved a writ petition being W. P. No. 7572 (W) of 2011 before the Hon’ble High Court and the said writ petition was finally heard and disposed of by the Hon’ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya by a solemn order dated 17.05.2011 wherein His Lordship was pleased to direct the authority concerned to release the alleged overdrawn money in favour of said Rabindra Nath Mondal which has been deducted by the authority concerned after his retirement and having such information the petitioner decide (sic decided) to pray before the Hon’ble Court for release of the alleged overdrawn money and also to revise the pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by the petitioner………….

9. The petitioner states that the petitioner was taken a back (sic aback) by such abrupt incorporation of an imaginary amount in the PPO as an overdrawal amount to which the petitioner lodged his protest but the respondent verbally informed that without deduction of the said amount, the pensionary benefit cannot be released and accordingly the respondents Suo Moto (sic suo motu) deducted the said amount of Rs. 44,657/- from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner and disbursed the remaining amount. The fact of such recovery would be evident from the memo No. 5691/S dated 30.09.2005.”

The delay in approaching the Court has been sought to be explained in the following words:

“18. That the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a inhabitant of a remote village and from the long time ago he was suffering from various disease due to old age and more over he had no knowledge about the legal procedure to approach before the proper judicial forum for get relief. Time without number he visited personally with the concerned Treasury Officer as well as the conc