The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of previous court decisions in similar cases, the finality of decisions made by the Hon’ble Division Bench and Co-ordinate Benches, and the prohibition of re-litigating settled issues as an abuse of the court's process.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The present writ petitioner is aggrieved against a memo of Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata dated 1st December, 2021 wherein the present writ petitioner was instructed to perform some official norms as he would retire on superannuation at the age of 60 years with effect from 30.05.2022.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present writ petitioner was selected in a process of appointment to the post of “Accompanist” as a “Shenda” player by the selection committee of Rabindra Bharati University and was appointed by Rabindra Bharati University by an office order dated 10th March, 1993 as an “Accompanist” teacher in dance for playing “Shenda” in the faculty of Arts, Department of Dance, thereby requesting him to join in the said post at an early date and in response thereto, the petitioner has joined in the post on 1st April 1995 for a period of one year on probation from the date of the joining and upon being satisfied service expiring of one year probation period, the Concern Authority confirmed the service of the writ petitioner by memo dated 19th September 1994 with effect from 1st April 1994 and since then the present petitioner has been discharging his duties having without any adverse remark from any point of time.

3. The Rabindra Bharati University Act 1981 was amended in 1985 incorporating the ward “Accompanist” teacher of the University

In Section-2(21), 2(22) as follows:

(21) "Teacher" means a Principal, Professor, Assistant Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator, Tutor, Inspector, Accompanist or any other person, either whole-time or part-time, imparting instruction or conducting research or assisting in the teaching of music or dance by providing instrumental or vocal accompaniment, in the University or in any college, institution or centre affiliated to the University;

(22) "Teacher of the University" means a Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Accompanist or any other person, appointed or recognized as such by the University, either whole time or part time, for the purpose of imparting instruction or conducting research or assisting in the teaching of music or dance by providing instrumental or vocal accompaniment, in the University;

4. Vide notification dated 29.11.2022 the Government of West Bengal Labour Department introduced the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment), 2012 thereby substituted Section 2(21) Section 2(22) of the Act, 1981 as follows:

“(21) “Teacher of College” means a Professor or an Associate Professor or an Assistant Professor or a Reader holding a whole time substantive teaching post and appointed in a permanent vacancy in a college or recognized as such by the State Government”.

“(22) “Teacher of University” means a Professor or an Associate Professor or an Assistant Professor or any other person, holding a whole-time substantive teaching post and appointed in a permanent vacancy in a University or recognised as such by the University with prior approval of the State Government”.

5. However, the University was treated the present writ petitioner as the teacher of the University and has imposed several duties upon the petitioner as an “Accompanist teacher”. The pay slips of the present petitioner also designate him as an “Accompanist teacher”.

6. The Government of West Bengal vide notification dated 27.01.2017 and subsequent notification dated 24th January, 2019, the age of retirement of the teacher of the University has been enhanced from 60 years to 62 years and 62 years to age 65 years respectively.

7. The change of the status of the present writ petitioner including other “Accompanist” of the same University was under challenge before the Single Bench of this Court as well as the Division Bench and it has been finally held that as on the date of resolution adopted by the University, the appellants were treated as teacher of University and not non-teaching employees since the substantive laws operate prospectively, unless, off course, they are made to operate wi