Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Amrita Sinha, J
Dinesh Mondal – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
WPA No. 2310 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ekramul Bari, Sk. Imtiajuddin
For the Respondents: Bhaskar Prosad Vaisya, Sagnik Chatterjee, Gourav Das
The Court cannot condone a shortfall in qualifying service for pension beyond the statutory limit of six months prescribed by the DCRB Scheme, 1981, as doing so would rewrite service conditions and lead to inconsistent applications of law.
Headnote:The petitioner sought condonation of a shortfall of seven months and twenty-five days in the qualifying service period required for pension under the Death Cum Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981. The respondent authority disallowed the prayer, citing that the scheme only permits condonation of up to six months. The petitioner relied on previous judgments where shortfalls were condoned, arguing the delay in appointment was beyond his control. The central issue was whether the Court could condone a deficiency in qualifying service exceeding the six-month limit prescribed by the DCRB Scheme, 1981. The Court reasoned that pension is payable upon completion of a specific period and a strict limit must be maintained to avoid discrimination and an influx of similar claims. It held that it cannot rewrite service conditions or grant relaxation beyond the legal provision of six months unless specific circumstances, such as prior unrecognized service, exist. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Amrita Sinha, J.:-
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13th November, 2019 passed by the Principal Secretary, School Education Department in compliance of the order passed by the Court on 9th September, 2019 in the matter of Dinesh Mondal –vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.
The prayer of the petitioner for condoning the shortfall in qualifying service period of seven months and twenty-five days was disallowed by the respondent authority.
According to the respondents the same is impermissible in terms of the DCRB Scheme, 1981. The respondent authority referred to the pending appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal being MAT 927 of 2019 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the Court was pleased to condone deficiency of seventy-six days in the qualifying service of the petitioner.
It was further contended that there was no delay and/or lapses on the part of the respondent authority at the time of issuance of the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioner.
The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the issue in question has already been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 28th May, 2021 passed in MAT 1917 of 2019 with IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (The State of West Bengal –vs- Rabindra Nath Ghosh).
It is the further submission of the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the State being MAT 927 of 2019 has not been pressed by the appellants and the appeal was dismissed by an order dated 24th September, 2021.
Reliance has also been placed upon an unreported judgment dated 25th January, 2018 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No. 9903 (W) of 2016 in the matter of Gostha Bihari Guchhait –vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Learned advocate representing the State respondents submits that the facts of the present case are dissimilar to the facts of the case that has been decided either by the Single Judge or the Division Bench of this Court.
It has been submitted that the deficiency in service condoned in the matter of Mir Kashem (supra) and Rabindra Nath Ghosh (supra) was less than six months. In the present case the shortfall is seven months and twenty-five days. There is no provision in law for condoning deficiency in qualifying service for more than six months.
Prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition.
I heard and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.
Death Cum Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981 mentions that subject to satisfactory service an employee shall be entitled to pension provided the employee concerned had completed at least ten years of service on attaining the age of superannuation. The Scheme further mentions that upon any condition which it may think fit to impose, Government may condone a deficiency of six months in the qualifying service of the employees of Non-Government/Sponsored/Aided Educational Institutions/Organisations.
The Government by a Memo dated 2nd February, 2009 modified the aforesaid Scheme and laid down that fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as completed six monthly period of service and reckoned as qualifying service for determining retirement benefit and the period of service below three months will be ignored. The aforesaid implies that a shortfall of maximum six months in service may be condoned by the Government.
The Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Rabindra Nath Ghosh (supra) condoned deficiency of twenty-six days in qualifying service.
The Court in Mir Kashem (supra) condoned seventy-six days of shortfall.
In Subhas Chandra Chakraborty (supra) the Court condoned deficiency of only thirteen days in the qualifying service of the petitioner.
In Gostha Bihari Guchhait (supra) the Court directed to condone deficiency of about one year and two months after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was in service in the unrecognised section of the school prior to regularisation of his service. The Court was of
