Deprivation Of Minimum Pensionary Benefit Due To Fault Of Authorities Not Permitted; Delay Period To Be Considered As Qualifying Service: Calcutta High Court
The Petitioner had approached the Calcutta High Court, assailing the order upholding the rejection of his claim for pension.
The Calcutta High Court has allowed the petition a Medical Officer challenging the rejection of his pension claim and held that the deprivation of minimum pensionary benefit for the fault/ delay on the part of the authorities is not permitted.
The Petitioner approached the High Court, assailing the order upholding the rejection of his claim for pension.
The Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya said, “...we also record the settled legal position that the petitioner would not be in a position to claim any wages for the period in between 22.02.2005 till 20.04.2010, i.e. the date on which the appointment order was issued, on the principle of no work no pay. He, however, cannot be deprived of this period for the purpose of qualifying service. Sustaining such a deprivation would amount of saddling the petitioner with civil consequences such as deprivation of minimum pensionary benefit, for the fault/ delay on the part of the respondents. The law does not permit the same.”
Advocate Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty represented the Petitioner while AGP Tapan Kr. Mukherjee represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Petitioner was working as a medical officer in the Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College. He sought the benefit of a pension, which was declined by the authorities by citing that the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualifying service for the grant of a pension. Since the petitioner had only 8 years, 7 months and 15 days of service as a State Government employee, which was less than 10 years, he did not qualify for the minimum pensionary benefits after superannuation.
Arguments
It was the petitioner’s case that in view of the provisions contained in the Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital (taking over of management and subsequent acquisition) Act, 1983, the petitioner who was earlier already working as Medical Officer in the college became a State Government employee from the date of vesting of the college, that is the date of acquisition on January 2, 1992.
As per the Petitioner, it was after several rounds of litigation that the final order was passed in 2001 directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner against the next available vacancy. However, the respondents took another 5 years to issue the order of appointment. Even if this 5-year period of delay was to be considered as qualifying service, then the petitioner would very well cross the 10 years requisite qualifying service for the purposes of the grant of pension.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found out that the petitioner had received double gratuity.
The Bench noted that the petitioner had been pursuing his claim for being absorbed/ appointed as a State Government employee in the college in terms of the 1983 Act since the year 1988, when he filed the first writ petition. The second round of litigation before the SAT gave rise to a second writ petition where the Court found the petitioner’s claim to be similar to that of other Doctors who were held entitled to their salary in accordance with scales fixed by the State Government, and for issuance of formal orders of their absorption.
“The right of the petitioner for being absorbed under the 1983 Act, at par with Dr. Prasanta Das and Ors., therefore, crystalized on 22.02.2005 when this Court passed orders in writ proceedings arising out of W.P.S.T. No. 803 of 2001, in favour of the petitioner…Even after passing of such an order the State took another 5 years to divert a post from the State cadre on which the petitioner was appointed by way of absorption in the college, as a State Government employee”, the Bench said while also adding, “...we find that the petitioner’s right had crystalized long back on 22.02.2005. Even after crystallization of his rights for being appointed on 22.02.2005 the respondents have taken another 5 years for appointing him by way of absorption as per mandate contained under the 1983 Act.”
As per the Bench, the delay in the petitioner’s appointment in between February 22, 2005, to April 20, 2010, is attributable to the respondent authorities. They had committed a wrong in the said period by not complying with the Court’s direction.
Thus allowing the Petition, the Bench ordered, “We, therefore, find it a fit case where a direction to be issued to the respondent authorities for counting the period between 22.02.2005 to 20.04.2010 as qualifying service. By adding the same to the service post 20.04.2010, till his superannuation the respondent authorities should consider the petitioner’s claim for minimum pensionary benefits.”
Cause Title: Dr. Satinath Samanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Case No.: W.P.S.T. 210 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty, Sumit Banerjee, Puspa Rani Jaiswara
State: AGP Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Advocate Sangeeta R