The Court held that denying pension based on formal absorption dates while treating alike workers differently violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

………….......…………for the State JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal, whereby the claim of the Petitioner’s deceased mother for grant of pension was rejected.

2. The facts leading to the present case is as follows:

3. The Petitioner’s deceased mother was appointed as a casual worker under the Respondent Municipality on 05.09.1979.

4. An extraordinary (special) meeting of the Councillors of the Garulia Municipality was held on 03.08.2005, wherein it was unanimously resolved to absorb/regularise all casual employees appointed prior to 1992. There were 60 such workers serving in the Municipality. Pursuant to the said resolution, the then Chairman of the Respondent Municipality, vide letter No. 246 dated 06.08.2005, forwarded the resolution along with the gradation list of 60 casual workers to Respondent No. 2 (Director of Local Bodies) for necessary approval. The Petitioner’s deceased mother’s name was in the sr. No. 3 of the said gradation list.

5. Respondent No. 2, vide communication dated 20.02.2006 bearing No.

352/DLB/P-205/15/96, informed the Municipality that the Governor had accorded approval under Section 54 (3) of the West Bengal Municipal Act , 1993, for the appointments of the pre-1992 casual workers against the existing vacancies, with effect from their respective dates of joining under the Municipality. Subsequently, the Board of Councillors of the Respondent Municipality, vide Resolution No. 8 dated 28.02.2006, adopted the said proposal in view of the approval granted by the State Government. Hence the Respondent Municipality absorbed all the Pre-92 casual employees.

6. The Petitioner’s deceased mother rendered continuous service for a period of 32 years, 9 months, and 26 days, and superannuated on 30.06.2012. It is the Petitioner’s contention that in view of her long tenure of service, the deceased was entitled to gratuity, pension, and all other retiral benefits as applicable to similarly situated employees of the Municipality. However, she was only paid a sum of Rs. 21,493/- towards Provident Fund and was sanctioned a provisional pension of Rs. 3,835/- per month with effect from August 2012.

7. During her lifetime, the deceased made several representations to the Respondent authorities seeking release of her full retiral dues, treating her service from 1979 onwards as qualifying service. Finding no response, she approached this Court by filing WPA No. 6281 of 2019. During the pendency of the said writ petition, she passed away on 21.01.2022. The Petitioner and her sister, being her only legal heirs, were substituted in her place. The said writ petition was disposed of by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2024, directing Respondent No. 2 to take a reasoned decision on her claim after granting an opportunity of hearing to the substituted petitioners.

8. Pursuant to the said direction, Respondent No. 2 passed a speaking order dated 18.06.2024, wherein it was held that while the deceased was entitled to gratuity, she was not entitled to pension as she had not completed the minimum qualifying service of 10 years after her absorption as a regular employee.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the deceased mother of the Petitioner, having rendered more than three decades of service, was similarly situated with other casual workers who have been granted full retiral benefits, including pension. Denial of the same