The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of DCRB guidelines by the respondent No.3, leading to the delay in processing the petitioner's retiral benefits, and the court's direction to pay compensation and costs to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Lapita Banerji, J. - The petitioner's grievance in this Writ Petition being W.P.A. No. 3039 of 2017 arises out of the failure on the part of the respondent No.3/the Principal of Berhampore College to process the documents necessary for payment of retiral benefits of the writ petitioner. The failure on the part of the Principal to send the entire documents along with the service book to the respondent No.4/the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance for release of pensionary benefits.

2. The facts in the Writ Petition are as follows:

(a) The petitioner retired as an Assistant Professor of Mathematics from Berhampore College on January 31, 2016. He has continuously rendered his service from January 4, 1982.

(b) Despite rendering 34 years of continuous satisfactory service, his post-retirement benefits were withheld, due to the conduct/action on the part of the respondent No.3/the Principal.

(c) After waiting for a long period, on September 6, 2016, the petitioner wrote to the respondent No.2/the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) Higher Education Department for release of the retirement benefits of the petitioner.

(d) In reply to the letter, to the DPI (Supra) the respondent No.3/Principal by a purported communication dated September 23, 2016 vide DC/126/2016-17 informed the petitioner that despite several requests to submit the accounts of the Directorate Of Distance Learning (DODL), Kalyani University, the petitioner did not submit the same. The petitioner was one of the Coordinators of DODL, Behrampore College since the initiation of the course. According to the respondent No.3, the petitioner should have cleared all its liabilities before his retirement.

(e) Immediately, upon receipt of the purported communication, (Supra) the petitioner by a letter dated October 5, 2016, replied to the same. It would be evident from the said communication, that since 2011-12 the petitioner was not a Member of the DODL Committee any more. He was also never the Treasurer of the same. It was the respondent No.3/Principal who was the Chairman of the said Committee from the very beginning till the date of the letter. The petitioner was never ever called upon to give any accounts as the same was to be maintained by the Chairman/respondent No.3 and not the petitioner. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to the respondent No.3, the petitioner's service book was not released even after 9 months of his retirement. As a result thereof, the petitioner neither received his pension nor provident fund nor gratuity nor leave encashment.

(f) No reply was given to the petitioner to his letter dated October 5, 2016.

(g) The petitioner had no alternative but to file the instant Writ Petition on February 6, 2017.

3. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, it was noted by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench that despite Affidavit of Service no one represented the respondent No.3 nor the College in issue on several dates. The State respondent was represented and filed written instructions on behalf of the State Authority pursuant to as earlier Order of the Court dated February 22, 2017. From the said written instructions, it would be evident that the petitioner retired on January 31, 2016. The petitioner sent a letter to the respondent No.2 on January 9, 2017 requesting release of his pensionary benefits. Upon receipt of the letter, the Respondent No.2 immediately sent a letter dated February 2, 2017 vide Memo No.136/C/Pen to the respondent No.3/Principal requesting him to furnish the pension papers of the petitioner at an early date. Respondent No.3 was also required to provide valid reasons as to why the pension papers were not submitted 8 months prior to the petitioner's retirement in terms of D.P.I.'s Circular No.1050-C-Pen dated July 22, 2016 and also why he would not be held responsible to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity etc.

4. Upon receipt of such instructions, the respondent No.3 vide a covering letter dated February 20, 2