Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBRATA TALUKDAR, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
Bishnu Hari Jana - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
MAT No. 2091 of 2016 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2016 (Old No. CAN 12154 of 2016)
Decided On : 03-07-2023
BISHNUHARI JANA V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL - WEST BENGAL RECOGNIZED NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEES (DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT) RULES 1981, RULES 4, 5(1), 6(1) - The court held that the appellant is not entitled to any retiral benefits as he had resigned from his service and the resignation was accepted by the authority.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an approved Headmaster of Balpai Prafulla Chandra Sen Vidyamandir, tendered his resignation on 03.12.1979 due to ill health. The resignation was accepted by the concerned authority. Subsequently, the appellant wanted to withdraw his resignation but was not permitted to be reinstated. The appellant filed several writ petitions challenging the acceptance of his resignation and seeking payment of his outstanding dues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had resigned from his service on 31.12.1979 and the resignation was accepted by the authority. The court also found that the appellant was not entitled to any retiral benefits as he had not completed the required minimum period of service.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to any salary and/or any retiral benefit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant is not entitled to any retiral benefits as he had resigned from his service and the resignation was accepted by the authority. The court also held that the appellant was not entitled to any salary as he had not attended the school since the period of suffering that is much prior to the submission of the resignation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal to take into consideration the entire aspect of service of the appellant/writ petitioner afresh in accordance with the Recognized Non-Government Secondary Institution Pension Rules, 1968 prevalent at the time of resignation that is 31.12.1979 and to decide as to the aspect of any dues receivable by the appellant/writ petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Supratim Bhattacharya, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by Bishnuhari Jana who was an approved Headmaster of Balpai Prafulla Chandra Sen Vidyamandir within the district of Hooghly, against the impugned order passed on 21.11.2016 in the writ petition being WP 24786(W) of 2016.
2. This is the fourth round of litigation initiated by the appellant writ petitioner. Each round of litigation dealt with the purported resignation of the appellant/writ petitioner from his service in the said school. In each round of litigation the writ petition has been contested by the school authority and the State respondents stating that the resignation of the appellant writ petitioner has been accepted.
The issue of resignation of the appellant writ petitioner from his service has attained finality with the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench in CO 8053 (W) of 1993.
Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court in WP No. 14351 (W) of 2011 dated 17.11.2011 directing the concerned authority to pay all outstanding dues which are admissible to him.
Subsequently by an order dated 20.4.2016 in another writ petitioner being WP 2207 (W) of 2016 Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court directed the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, Government of West Bengal (for short DPP&G) to take steps with regard to the representation of the writ petition.
The DPP&G, inter alia, found that under the West Bengal Recognized non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1981 ( for short the 1981 Rules) the resignation tendered by the appellant entails forfeiture of the past service.
3. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner before the Hon’ble Single Bench and the respondents were the opposite parties/respondents in the writ petition.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by an Hon’ble Single Bench in WP 24786(W) of 2016 the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Through the impugned order the Hon’ble Single Bench has come to the conclusion that as the petitioner has not approached the Court in clean hand and has not disclosed the fact that his resignation has already been accepted by the authority and has also filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Hon’ble Single Bench has not been inclined to interfere in any manner whatsoever and has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
6. The fact of the instant lis is that the appellant /writ petitioner tendered his resignation on 03.12.1979.
His resignation was accepted by the concerned authority.
Subsequently the appellant/ writ petitioner wanted to withdraw his resignation but he was not permitted to be reinstated.
Ultimately the said issue regarding the petitioner’s right to withdraw his resignation came up before the Court and an Hon’ble Single Bench while deciding the said issue in the writ petition being C.O. No. 8053 (W) of 1993 held that the petitioner having been unwell and having tendered his resignation cannot have the legal right to claim reinstatement. As such the relief which was claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition was refused. While dismissing the said writ petition direction was given for payment of all outstanding dues of the petitioner expeditiously.
Despite communication of the said order nothing was paid to the petitioner though the time limit has expired long ago.
Being compelled the petitioner had once again preferred a writ petition being WP No. 14351(W) of 2011 seeking issuance of direction upon the concerned authorities for immediate payment of the admissible dues. The Hon’ble Single Bench while disposing the said writ petition directed the concerned authority to pay all outstanding dues admissible to the petitioner.
Thereafter the writ petitioner filed another writ petition being WP No. 2207 (W) of 2016 and the petitioner complained of inaction on the part of the concerned school authority to release the admissible pensionary benefi
An employee who resigns from his service is not entitled to any retiral benefits.
The acceptance of resignation without prior approval in accordance with statutory provisions amounts to termination, disallowing claims for pension or benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant can withdraw their resignation before its acceptance, as provided under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants R....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a teacher's resignation should be made voluntarily, and if the employee withdraws such resignation, it is duly entitled to do so.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of pension provisions and the recognition of pension as a continuous relief/right for the employee, which sho....
An employee's request for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn before it takes effect, and the intention behind the request must be considered in determining its nature.
A resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance by the authority concerned, and in the absence of statutory provisions, the decision to accept a resignation should be justifiable.
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
