· Calcutta High Court allows condonation of service deficiency
· It upheld pension grant to retired teacher, as the delay in employment was due to delays on the part of the State
· Judgment reinforces accountability of state authorities
In a recent judgement, the Calcutta High Court provided huge relief to a retired teacher who was denied the pension for not completing the minimum years of service to be eligible for pension. The division bench comprising Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J., and Tapabrata Chakraborty, J., allowed condonation of deficiency in service due to ongoing delays by the State. It directed the School Education Department, West Bengal, to take necessary action, condone the deficiency of service in records, and disburse the benefits to the teacher (respondent in this case).
Background Of The Case
The teacher superannuated in 2011, but was not sanctioned for the pension. His employer, Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal denied him pension because he worked less than 10 years, a minimum period to be eligible to receive pension under the Non- Government Educational Institutions Employees (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Scheme.
Aggrieved, the teacher approached the High Court and filed a petition against the Education Department, where the single judge bench passed an order in his favour, per a Live Law report. In response, the State (Appellant) filed a contention.
Arguments In The Appeal
The State's (petitioner) counsel argued that the deficiency in service is more than three years and therefore, his service should not be considered for condonation of deficiency in qualifying service.
The other argument was that the Department had approved his service effective June 8, 2005, to his superannuation on October 6, 2011, during which the respondent (teacher) had waived his right to claim condonation of deficiency in service. Further, it argued that no competent authority has condoned the deficiency in the qualifying service of the respondent.
The respondent's counsel contended that the Employment Exchange sponsored his (teacher's) name against the vacancies for assistant teachers in 1986. However, there have been many court cases later regarding related vacancies. Due to this, the respondent (teacher) could not be appointed on time. Later, the matter reached the court and, per its judgement, a separate committee was appointed to see the matter. The counsel argued that due to the delay on the part of the State, the respondent should not be punished.
It also said that a pension is a respondent's right similar to the right to property, and therefore, it should not be denied because of the delay on the part of the State.
Court's Observation
The court observed that the respondent's employment approval was withheld due to a "series of litigations". Finally, his approval was granted in 2005. The court observed, "Indisputably, Bansi'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 Bansi, he had suffered the injury for having been deprived of approval for more than 10 years." The court also discounted his delay in approaching the court, referring to the case of Union of India and others versus Tarsem Singh. According to which condonation of deficiency in service can be allowed, when "the continuing wrong creating a continuous source of injury and more so when the grant of pension upon condonation of deficiency in service would not in any manner affect any settled rights of third parties."
Court's Judgement
The division bench of the court did not change the single bench judgement, saying, "we do not find any reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Judge to grant notional benefit to Bansi treating him to be in service for the qualifying period of ten years and to proceed processing with the pension file and to ensure that he receives his pension at the earliest."
The court also directed the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal, being the competent authority in this matter, to take necessary steps to condone the deficiency of service and disburse all the benefits to the respondent (teacher) directed by the single judge in his order. The court gave a four-month extension to execute the instructions and disposed of the application.
