Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, Protik Prakash Banerjee, JJ.
State Of West Bengal And Others - Appellants
Versus
Kartick Chandra Das And Others - Respondents
F.M.A.No.677 of 2015
Decided On : 18-02-2020
Mr. Sk. Mujibar Rahaman for the appellants, for the Appellant; Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, Ms. Usha Maity for respondent no.1-writ petitioner Mr. K.M. Hossain for the headmaster, for the Respondent
Continuous service and delayed recognition by the government can justify the condonation of the deficiency in the qualifying service period for pension and gratuity benefits.
Headnote:
Pension and Gratuity - Service Period Calculation - West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 - Paragraph 7(b), 7(e)(iv) - Haradhan Mahato v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2013(3) CLJ(Cal) 520, Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Narata Singh & Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 317, Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2017, State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Aparesh Chandra Datta & Ors. 2016(4) WBLR (Cal) 574 - The court discussed the calculation of service period for pension and gratuity benefits under the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981. It highlighted the discretion of the government to condone a deficiency in qualifying service and referenced relevant case laws to support its decision. The court emphasized the importance of continuous service and the recognition of service by the government in determining qualifying service for pension and gratuity benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents were denied pension and gratuity benefits due to a deficiency in the qualifying service period. The court found that the continuous service of the respondents and the delayed recognition by the government warranted the condonation of the deficiency in service period for pension and gratuity benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' continuous service and delayed recognition by the government justified the condonation of the deficiency in the qualifying service period for pension and gratuity benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents' service period qualified for pension and gratuity benefits under the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the continuous service and delayed recognition by the government justified the condonation of the deficiency in the qualifying service period for pension and gratuity benefits, citing relevant case laws to support its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were granted pension and gratuity benefits with the condonation of the deficiency in the qualifying service period.
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of this case are very similar to those in Haradhan Mahato v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2013(3) CLJ(Cal) 520. To highlight this factual identity, we set out paras. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgement:-
'9. The respondent authorities, therefore, denied the benefits of usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner for not completing the prescribed usual period of 10 years, which, according to our calculation, comes to less than a period of three months. However, as we have already mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 1 st July, 1968 a seasonal Khalashi and discharged his regular duty in the concerned establishment, the said period should not be altogether ignored and should be taken into consideration to make up the short- fall in computing the service period for the purpose of granting benefit of usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner. In spite of serving the organisation since 1968 the benefit of pension should not be denied by the Government of West Bengal on the plea that the post in question was formally sanctioned afterwards and formal office Order was issued at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner although, fact remains that the concerned establishment of the State of West Bengal enjoyed the service of the employee concerned, namely, the petitioner herein, for a period of almost 37 years (approximately). A poor employee like the petitioner, therefore, cannot be denied the benefit of usual pension and other retiral benefits in spite of serving the same establishment continuously for a period of more than 35 years on the plea that the office order relating to permanent absorption of the petitioner was issued at the fag end of the service career as a result whereof the said petitioner, did not complete 10 years service period after issuing the formal office order. From the copy of the letter of the Director of Personnel & Ex-officio Chief Engineer, I & W Directorate, Government of West Bengal, we find that after entry into the service the petitioner along with other seasonal employees repeatedly requested the concerned authorities to regularise their service by issuing appropriate office order which the concerned Authority did at a belated stage.
10. The aforesaid delay in issuing the formal office order regularising service of the petitioner cannot deprive the said petitioner from enjoying the benefit of usual pension and other retiral benefits on the ground that the said employee did not complete 10 years of service period, which is factually not correct in view of the fact that, admittedly, from the office record we find that the date of entry of the petitioner in the service as seasonal Khalashi under the Kangsabati Canals Division No. 1 is 1 st July, 1968.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the benefit of usual pension and gratuity should not be denied to the petitioner on the alleged plea that the said petitioner did not complete 10 years service before retirement.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are unable to approve the decision of the learned Tribunal and, therefore, we set aside the same. The Respondent Authorities are directed to grant the usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner treating the said petitioner in permanent service at least for a period 10 years before retirement on attaining the age superannuation.
13. The respondent authorities are directed to grant the aforesaid pension to the petitioner without any further delay but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Respondent Authorities are also directed to sanction entire admissible amount towards the arrear pension to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.'
2. In this case, the first respondent-writ petitioner joined the concerned school as a member of the organizing staff in 1971. On 29 th September 1992, the district level inspection team (DLIT) carried out the usual inspection of the school. It was recognised o
