SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 12698

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MANGAL BANERJEE @ DR. MANGAL BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OFGRATUITY ACT1972 – Respondent
WPA 8648 / 2019



IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 8648 of 2019 Mangal Banerjee @ Dr. Mangal Banerjee -Vs-

The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Ms. Chandreyi Alam Ms. Runu Mukherjee For the State : Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal Heard on : 07.03.2025, 26.06.2025, 14.08.2025 Judgment on : 02.12.2025 Uploaded on : 05.12.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner chronicled continuous and dedicated service of ten years rendered at the educational establishment borne out of the welfare obligations of the Coal Mining Industry. His journey commenced when he was appointed as a clerk in the Santaldih Coal Washery Junior High School on 2nd August 1971. With the school being upgraded in 1978 to a High School upon recognition by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner, upon acquiring requisite qualifications for teaching, sought the recognized post of Assistant Teacher. His claim crystallized pursuant to an order dated 26th November 1997 passed by this Court in CO No.1404 (W)

of 1992, whereafter the Project Officer, Bhojudih Coal Washery under Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) formally appointed him as an Assistant Teacher. His pay was duly fixed by office order dated 4th September 2002, and he functioned in such capacity until his superannuation on 31st July 2013.

2. The petitioner asserted Bhojudih Coal Washery was initially under the Central Control Washeries Organization subsequently absorbed with Coal India Limited and thereafter within the control of BCCL, i.e. respondent No.3. The school, in question, was established primarily to provide educational facilities to the wards of coal mine workers. It formed part of a larger welfare scheme, reflected in National Coal Wage Agreements and Joint Bipartite Agreements, which envisaged that coal companies would bear responsibility for operating schools within mining areas, including payment of salaries, ex gratia, bonus, and ancillary benefits.

3. The petitioner emphasized from inception the entire financial burden of the Santaldih Coal Washery Junior High School elevated to Santaldih Coal Washery High School was borne by the Coal Washery Authorities. Recognition was granted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education vide communication dated 25th April 1979, on the explicit condition that the school would not be entitled to any financial assistance from the State Government and all recurring and non-recurring financial responsibilities would be discharged by the Central Coal Washeries Organization. This condition persisted even after the organization merged with BCCL thereby casting upon respondent No.3, the liability to sustain the institution.

4. Throughout his service, the petitioner along with other teaching and non-

teaching staff received monthly salary, increments, house rent allowance, medical benefits, and other emoluments from respondent No.3 through the Project Officer and Deputy Manager (Finance), Bhojudih Coal Washery. Statements of grant-in-aid and salary disbursement issued from time to time, copies of which the petitioner furnished, demonstrated that the employer and Paymaster were invariably the Coal Washery Authorities and not the State Government. The Managing Committee of the School consisted of representatives from the Coal Washery Authorities including the Project Officer, Deputy Personal Manager, Senior Finance Manager and other officials, reflecting pervasive administrative and financial control of respondent No.3.

5. Following his retirement, the petitioner sought gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. His representation was declined on the ground that he was an employee of the school – an aided institution and not of BCCL and consequently, he was claimed to be ineligible for gratuity. Face with refusal, he approached the Controlling Authority under the said Act wherein he conte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top