Long-serving employees are entitled to equitable treatment in securing retirement benefits, and technical barriers should not hinder their rightful claims.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus against the Respondents, directing them to regularize the services of the Petitioner and to release his retirement benefits, including monthly pension, upon issuance of the Pension Payment Order (PPO).

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as an Assistant in the Conservancy Department under Nabadwip Municipality by virtue of an appointment letter vide Memo No. 420/NM dated 29.06.1990, issued by the Chairman of the said Municipality, pursuant to Resolution No. 21 passed by the Board of Commissioners in their meeting dated 29.05.1990. Subsequently, vide Memo No. 755/64 dated 08.10.1993, the Chairman confirmed the Petitioner's service in consonance with Resolution No. 18 passed in the meeting held on 30.05.1992. The Petitioner rendered continuous service for 27 years and retired on 31.08.2017. However, till date, no Pension Payment Order has been issued, and no retirement benefits have been disbursed.

3. The Petitioner submits that his case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 24.03.2022 in WPA No. 32668/2014 titled Netai Chandra Singha Vs. The State of West Bengal and seeks similar relief.

4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely the Director, Local Bodies, and Nabadwip Municipality, have filed their respective counter affidavits.

Submission on behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Director of Local Bodies)

5. Respondent No. 2, the Director of Local Bodies, in their affidavit, stated that they are unable to grant approval to the post of Assistant in the Conservancy Department due to the post not being sanctioned. It was further averred that no proposal has yet been received from the Respondent Municipality seeking post facto approval for the Petitioner’s appointment. Consequently, they are not in a position to confirm whether the Petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post.

6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 further submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant in the Conservancy Department, a post which, according to the consolidated chart of sanctioned posts vis-a-vis staff norms for Nabadwip Municipality, stood abolished as of 30.09.2009. As such, it was contended that the Petitioner’s case is distinguishable from that of the petitioners in Netai Chandra Singha (supra), and therefore, post facto approval cannot be granted in the Petitioner’s case.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also submitted that the erstwhile Municipal Affairs Department and the present Urban Development & Municipal Affairs Department have, from time to time, issued various Government Orders, including G.O. No. 300/MA/O/C-4/1A-7/2000 dated 28.06.2004, G.O. No. 207/MA/O/C-4/1A-7/2000 dated 07.05.2009, G.O. No. 422/MA/O/C-4/1A-7/2000 dated 19.08.2009, and G.O. No. 110- UDMA-25011(11)/109/2022-I SG SEC dated 06.02.2023. All such orders stipulate that appointments/promotions must be made strictly against sanctioned and vacant posts, in accordance with the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932.

8. It is further the stand of Respondent No. 2 that post facto approval has only been granted in cases where the incumbent was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post, and where the facts were similar to those in Netai Chandra Singha (supra). Since the Petitioner’s appointment does not fall within that category, the benefit of the said judgment cannot be extended to him.

Submission on behalf of Respondent No. 3 (Nabadwip Municipality)

9. Respondent No. 3, in its reply, stated that the Board of