Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, J.
Chinmoy Kumar Mondal – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
W.P. (A) No. 27838 of 2017
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21 - Seeking Pensionary benefit- Whether long service rendered by petitioner would be thrown to winds - Held, While Single Bench in order upheld by Hon’ble Appeal Court has observed that writ petitioner had been serving educational institution since question which now begs consideration is whether long service rendered by petitioner would be thrown to winds - While school authority as well as concerned State authority utilised service of petitioner as an Assistant Teacher of school to its fullest extent Court do not find any justification as to why he should be denied to get pensionary and retiral benefits on counting his qualifying service - An employee who gives all his youthness and heyday to his employer legitimately expects that his employer will secure rest of his life after retirement - Writ Petition stands Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, J.
1. By preferring this writ petition the petitioner seeks pensionary benefits counting his service from 8th May, 1991 instead of 1st January, 2014.
2. The background facts which led to the filing of the writ petition may briefly be stated as follows.
3. The petitioner was appointed as an organizing teacher of Dari Keoradangi Ananda Prasad Junior High School at village Dari Keoradangi, South 24 Parganas on 8th May, 1991.
4. The school was recognised as 2 Class i.e. Class V and Class VI Junior High School. Thereafter, the Secretary of the School made several representations to the concerned authority for granting further recognition for upgradation of the said school. On 25th May, 2010 the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education granted recognition for upgradation of the said school as 4 Class Junior High School and the school had been upgraded accordingly with effect from 1st March, 2010.
5. On 19th March, 2010 the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), South 24 Parganas sent a memo dated 19th March, 2010 to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, School Education Department for granting financial assistance to the school.
6. The petitioner was working as an organising teacher much prior to the upgradation of the school since his appointment in the year 1991. He rendered service for the benefit of the students of the school to the satisfaction of the school authority. He was working in the regular available vacancy according to the staff pattern of the school.
7. The petitioner made several representations to the concerned authority seeking approval of his appointment as an Assistant Teacher of the School. But, when the approval was not given in his favour he along with other teaching and non-teaching staff of the school preferred a writ petition being W.P No. 14073(W) of 2010 praying for direction upon the District Inspector of Schools (SE), South 24 Parganas to approve his appointment as well as the appointment of other writ petitioners. By order dated 24.12.2010 the writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge directing the District Inspector of Schools (SE), South 24 Parganas to approve the appointment of the petitioner within a specified time. Since the solemn order of the learned Single Bench was not complied with, the petitioner filed an application for contempt being CPAN 930 of 2011. Subsequently, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide Memo dated 6th February, 2017 with effect from 1st January, 2014 instead of 8th May, 1991.
8. Owing to the aforesaid order of approval financial benefit including salary of the petitioner were granted to him on and from 01.01.2014 ignoring the finding of the Hon’ble Court that the service of the petitioner should have been counted from 8th May, 1991 for the purpose of pensionary and retiral benefits. Because of this the petitioner may be deprived of getting pensionary and other retiral benefits. The petitioner submits that had the District Inspector of Schools approved his appointment with effect from the year 1991, he would been entitled to get pensionary and other service benefits since the date of his joining the school. The petitioner should have been given the financial benefits from the month of June, 2010 when the school was upgraded.
9. The petitioner avers in the writ petition filed on 10th November, 2017 that he will retire from service on superannuation on 31.12.2017. Though he served the Educational Institution for twenty seven years, he will be deprived of getting pensionary benefits. His legal right to livelihood during the retiring period till death has been taken away arbitrarily and in gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to modify the order of approval dated 06.02.2017 counting his qualifying service with effect from 8th May, 1991 instead of 1st January, 2014 f
The court affirmed that a teacher's continuity of service must be upheld unless substantiated by evidence; the withholding of salary without due process constitutes a violation of rights.
The court affirmed the principle that school staff must receive due salary and benefits unless proven otherwise, emphasizing continuity of service without interruption or unjust denial.
The court established that teachers engaged in unrecognized classes can be regularized upon the recognition of the school, provided their appointments were bona fide.
The date of approval of appointment cannot be construed as the relevant date for considering the applicability of the pension scheme, and it is the original date of appointment that matters for deter....
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
Recognition of continuous service prior to school approval is essential to entitle employees to pension benefits, despite shortfalls in qualifying service.
The date of appointment should be considered for pension benefits, and delays caused by the respondents cannot be used to deny the petitioners' rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
