29.07.2025 Item No.03 Court No.11 KCP MAT 669 of 2025 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2025 with IA No.CAN 2 of 2025 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

- Versus -

Niranjan Adhikari & Anr.

Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. AGP.

Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury.

…for the Appellants Mr. (Dr.) Debabrata Karan, Ms. Sabita Khutia (Bhunya), Ms. Ria Bhunya.

….for the Respondent No.1/

Writ Petitioner The present appeal has been preferred by the State and its functionaries challenging an order dated 6^th August, 2024 passed by the learned Judge in the writ petition being WPA 14777 of 2024.

As we have invited the learned advocates to advance their arguments on the merits of the matter, the delay in preferring in the present appeal is condoned and the application for condonation of delay being CAN 1 of

2025 is disposed of.

Records reveal that the writ petition, being WPA

14777 of 2024 was preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein, namely, Niranjan Adhikari (in short, Niranjan) challenging inter alia an order dated 16^th October, 2023 passed by the appellant no. 4 refusing to condone the deficiency in qualifying service of Niranjan and denying him pension on a purported finding that he had served less than 10 years, which debars him from such benefit under the West Bengal Recognised Non – Government Educational Institutions Employees (Death – cum – Retirement Benefit) Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Scheme).

Mr. Basu Mallick, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the shortage of qualifying service of the Niranjan is of more than one year and the learned Judge ought not to have taken into consideration the past unapproved service for the purpose of condonation of deficiency of qualifying service.

He argues that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that by accepting the appointment on 20^th August, 2005 and having continued in service till the date of his superannuation on 31^st October, 2014, Niranjan had waived his right to claim condonation of deficiency in service and that too after cessation of the employer – employee relationship.

Drawing our attention to ground no. VII in the memorandum of appeal, Mr. Basu Mallick contends that the appellant no.4 is not the competent authority to condone the deficiency in qualifying service and as such the ‘the appellants are not in a position to comply with the order as passed by the Ld. Single Judge’.

Dr. Karan, learned advocate appearing for Niranjan denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Basu Mallick and submits that Niranjan’s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange in the year of 1986-87 against the vacancies for the post of Assistant Teacher notified by this Council in the year of 1986 and due to series of Court cases he could not be appointed and ultimately pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Court, a separate panel was prepared and approved. For such delayed approval and for the laches on the part of the appellants, Niranjan cannot be made to suffer.

He contends that pension is a retirement benefit partaking of the character of regular payment to a person in consideration of the past service rendered by him and is claimable as a matter of right and such right is in the nature of a property in the hands of the employee which cannot be denied only on the ground of alleged delay. The benefits of the Pension Scheme cannot be scuttled by limiting the period of condonation in as much as such restriction would lead to discrimination.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

Indisputably, Niranjan’s approval was withheld due to a series of litigation and was ultimately granted in the year 2005, when in respect of others it was issued in the year 1993. Though such delay is not attributable to Niranjan, he had suffered the injury for having been deprived of approval for more than 10 years and that as such the State cannot set up any defensive doctrine of estoppel. The beneficent scheme would