A Para Teacher improperly denied benefits under governmental notifications due to administrative delays retains rights entitled under these notifications.

JUDGMENT :

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1. This writ petition relates to the petitioner’s prayer for grant of 5 per cent increment of salary and extension of his service till his 60 years of age, in terms of various Government notifications, starting from the dated April 23, 2010.

2. The notification dated April 23, 2010 has provided for enhancement of honorarium for the Para Teachers and Voluntary Resource Persons (VPR), working in different Primary/Upper Primary Schools, Siksha Bandhus and special educators working at different levels under Sarba Siksha Abhijan (SSA). The same has provided for enhancement of consolidated remuneration of the said category of contractual employees. The same has also provided that existing Para Teachers and those re-engaged in due course, shall be employed till their attaining 60 years of age. Also that, upon attaining 60 years of age, the Para Teachers or other contractual employees as mentioned in the said notification would be paid an ex-gratia retirement honorarium to the tune of Rs. 1 lakh on lump sum basis. The said notification came into force with effect from June 1, 2010.

3. The petitioner is a Para Teacher who joined in the School on December 1, 2012 in compliance with the order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 8542 (W) of 2010, has been continuously working therein, till the time of filing of the present writ petition. In fact, the present is the third round of litigation by the petitioner, before this Court. Here, the petitioner has challenged an order of the State Project Director, Paschim Banga Sarva Shiksha Mission (PBSSM) dated June 8, 2020 by dint of which, the said Authority has declined to grant the petitioner the benefit of 5 per cent increment in ad hoc monthly payment as a Para Teacher and also extension of service up to her 60 years of age. In the impugned order, the said respondent authority has cited the reasons inter alia as follows:-

Extension of service of Para Teacher upon 60 years of age was to be granted in terms of G.O. 376-SE (Pry) dated June 9, 2010, only to those who were on the pay roll of the PBSSM as on the said date. Since the petitioner has admittedly joined on duty from December 1, 2012 and was not therefore, on the pay roll of PBSSM on June 9, 2010, the provision thereunder could not be made applicable in case of the writ petitioner.

5 per cent enhancement in pay cannot be granted to the petitioner since the notification dated July 30, 2013, which has provided for such benefit, has also stipulated that the benefit would be applicable in case of those personnel who were on the role as on June 1, 2010 and have completed three years of service as on June 1, 2013. It is stated that the petitioner has not satisfied this criteria.

Similarly, the notification dated July 19, 2016 has provided for the benefit of service of the Para Teachers to be extendable to 60 years of his age, would be applicable in case of those persons who were on the role on June 1, 2010 and has completed three years’ service as on June 1, 2016 after completion of first three years’ service on June 1, 2013, counting from June 1, 2010).

That the petitioner would be squarely governed under the provisions of notifications dated April 23, 2010, June 9, 2010, July 30, 2013 and July 19, 2016 respectively.

4. Therefore, citing the reasons as above that on the date of notification that is, on June 19, 2010, the petitioner was not on the pay roll of Paschim Banga Sarva Shiksha Mission, and thus would not be eligible for benefit as per the same, no such benefit was extended to the writ petitioner.

5. Mr. Biswas for the petitioner is in complete defiance of what the respondent authority has stated in the impugned order. He says that the petitioner has been working since December 1, 2012 as a Para Teacher at Hatishala High School, Nadia. It is submitted that since thereafter, the petitioner has been working uninterruptedly and continuously in the said School in the said capacity. The first round of writ petition by