The court emphasized that approval for service must include financial benefits from the date of service recognition, highlighting the obligation of state employers to uphold principles of fairness and justice.

JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. The writ petitioner claims himself to be an organizer non-teaching Group-D staff of the school appointed therein on and from November 20, 1999. The school is said to be recognized in the year 2000. The petitioner claims to be regularized in the said school with full financial benefit with effect from the date from which he has been granted approval, though notionally. Since vide the impugned order of approval dated March 13, 2014, he has been granted notional approval not with the actual financial benefit from October 1, 2009 to February 28, 2014, the petitioner is aggrieved thereby. Also, since the Commissioner, School Education, West Bengal in his order dated August 22, 2019, has refused to allow the writ petitioner arrear salary for the said period, on the ground that during such period his service has only been approved notionally and not with any actual financial benefit payable to him for that period, the petitioner is further aggrieved. Therefore, he has filed the instant writ petition to challenge both the said orders and for appropriate relief.

2. Mr. Saikat Banerjee learned senior counsel has represented the writ petitioner in this case. He has submitted that the writ petitioner has been appointed in the school pursuant to the resolution of the school managing committee dated November 9, 1999 and November 20, 1999 respectively and that he has been working therein continuously and without any break since the date of his appointment that is November 20, 1999. That, after the school was recognized in the year 2000, the headmaster of the school has recommended name of the writ petitioner for approval in the post of Group-D staff of the said school, on June 26, 2004, but to no avail. Hence, the petitioner moved his first writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 18563(w) of 2004. Vide order dated January 10, 2014, in the said writ petition the Court has directed the respondent No.3/the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) Suri [herein after mentioned as the ‘DI’] to regularize the service of the writ petitioner as a Group-D employee of the school, within a stipulated time.

3. He has further submitted that pursuant to the Court’s order dated January 10, 2014, the writ petitioner was granted approval vide Memo dated March 13, 2014, with effect from October 1, 2009. Mr. Banerjee has submitted that the petitioner has been granted salary and other emoluments with effect from the date March 1, 2014 whereas the writ petitioner ought to have been granted the same from the date of his approval to the post, that is, October 1, 2009. He submits that the writ petitioner having been in continuous and uninterrupted service in the said school from the date of his appointment, ought to have been considered as eligible for salary and other financial benefits, from the date of his approval and not from any later date. He submits further that the spirit of the order of the Court dated January 10, 2014, is only the same.

4. According to Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel, granting approval of service of the writ petitioner only on notional basis from October 1, 2009 to February 28, 2014 without any actual financial benefit is contrary to the order of this Court dated January 10, 2014 as well as it is prejudicial to the vital rights touching life of the writ petitioner.

5. Mr. Banerjee has submitted that a letter of the school authority dated February 9, 2018, seeking grant of arrear salary to the writ petitioner from