26 10.01.

2025 FMA 178 of 2024 IA No. CAN 2 of 2023 Ct. No. 08 Ab Abdul Zabbar and others Vs.

State of West Bengal and others ---------------

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mf. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh, Mr. Subir Hazra.

… for the appellants.

Ms. Mousumi Chaudhury, Mr. Supriya Majumder.

… for the State.

Mr. Avishek Prasad.

Mr. Sourodeep Singha. … for the DPSC, Malda.

The solitary grievance raised in the writ petition by the writ petitioners/appellants is denial of the retiral and/or pensionary benefits solely on the ground of having not rendered qualifying period of service. The Writ Court after recording the facts arrived at the decision that since the writ petitioners/appellants have not rendered services, which would come within the ambit of the qualifying services for the purpose of such benefits, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the Co-ordinate Bench in case of The State of West Bengal and others vs. Kartick Chandra Das and others (FMA 677 of 2015) decided on 18^th February 2020 wherein the considerable shortfall in qualifying period of service was directed to be considered for extending the benefits available to the employees, who have rendered the qualifying period of service. Mr.

Bhattacharya further submits that the Court should not have taken up the responsibility to exercise the powers of the Administrative Authorities and/or the discretion vested upon it and should have relegated the appellants to the authorities for consideration.

The State and the District Primary School Council, Malda, refuted the aforesaid contention and submits that since the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions for the benefits to be extended to them after attainment of the superannuation, there is no infirmity and/or illegality in the order of the Single Bench in this regard.

It is undeniable that previously the appellants approached this Court as they were denied to appear in the interview. Pursuant to the order, they were permitted to appear in the interview and emerged successful in the recruitment process. Subsequently, the appointment letter was issued and the services were duly approved by the authority. It is also undeniable that they rendered services till attained the age of superannuation. The moment the appellants realized that they would be denied pensionary benefits under the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum- Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 (in short “said Scheme”), an approach was made to the Court.

There is no dispute that the said Scheme is applicable and the benefits envisaged therein shall be granted provided the conditions and/or the stipulations incorporated therein are fulfilled. The aforesaid Scheme has a statutory flavor and the Court shall not encourage the authority to act contrary thereto or to travel beyond the circumference thereof. The authority must act within the precincts of the provisions of the aforesaid statutory Scheme and in absence of any power to relax any of the provisions, such power cannot be assumed nor should be usurped by the authority.

Any action taken beyond the four corners of the statutory provisions of the said Scheme shall entail such decision to be interfered with in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Equally, the Writ Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the authority to act contrary to law or to do a thing, which has not been provided in the statute. In order to become entitle to the pensionary benefits, Chapter 3 of the said Scheme provides a complete mechanism as well as the qualification in this regard. Rule 7 postulates the period of service to qualify for pension in the following:

“7. Service qualifying for pension- (a) except for compensation gratuity, the service rendered by an employee before the completion of the age of 18 years shall not qualify for p