Allowed

Sitesh Chandra Das @ Sitesh Das v. State of West Bengal

Calcutta HC12 May 2022WPA/4583/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioner entitled to retirement benefits based on voluntary retirement. The court directed authorities to process pension dues within four weeks relying on a 2021 departmental letter. The issue of alleged delay was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to process pension and retirement dues within four weeks and intimate the decision within one week.

Sitesh Chandra Das @ Sitesh Das Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

12^th May, 2022 (D/L No.6) (SKB)

¶2

W.P.A. 4583 of 2022

¶3

Sitesh Chandra Das @ Sitesh Das Versus The State of West Bengal and others

¶4

Mr. Sobhan Majumder, Ms. Kalpita Paul … for the petitioner.

¶5

Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Mr. Bellal Shaikh … for the State.

¶6

Mr. Joytosh Majumder, Ms. Tapati Samanta … for respondent no.2.

¶7

The petitioner prays for admissible retirement benefits including pension from 2002 onwards.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 23^rd October, 2002 and made representations to the authorities on such case.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from 2002 till 2022, the petitioner has been deprived of his pensionary benefits.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the District Library Officer relies on the letter from the District Library Officer, Malda to the petitioner on 23^rd October, 2002 stating that the petitioner’s “resignation” from service has been accepted and that the petitioner cannot now seek to change this fact of ‘resignation’ to voluntary retirement. Counsel submits that because it was a case of resignation, the petitioner is not entitled to any

¶11

¶12

pension. It is also submitted that a part of the petitioner’s Employee Contributory Fund has already been received by the petitioner and that there are no admissible dues remaining which may be paid to the petitioner. Counsel refers to a decision of a 3-Judges Bench of this court concerning the Death cum Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1981 which laid down a cut off year (2014) beyond which pension could not be paid under the said Scheme to persons seeking for such benefit.

¶13

Upon hearing learned counsel, the primary issue appears to be whether the petitioner can change his stand from the fact of ‘resignation’ to the fact of ‘voluntary retirement’. Everything else flows from this fact.

¶14

The primary document in this regard is the letter of the District Library Officer to the petitioner on 23^rd October, 2002 which states that the petitioner’s resignation has been accepted. This letter, however, is contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner on 6^th June, 2001 which is a letter of the petitioner to the District Library Officer stating that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement from service. The case sought to be made out on behalf of the District Library Officer is also directly inconsistent with two letters emanating from the District Library Officer, namely, on 22^nd May, 2002 and 18^th February, 2021. Significantly,

¶15

¶16

by the latter document, it is the District Library Officer, Malda who has written to the Office of the Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, WB (DPPG), ‘UTTARKANYA’ Fulbari, Siliguri, forwarding the pension papers of the petitioner for necessary action at the end of the DPPG. There is no document on record or referred to on behalf of the District Library Officer which supports the stand which is now sought to be taken, namely, that the petitioner did not take voluntary retirement from service but resigned from the same. The letter of 23^rd October, 2002 emanates from the District Library Officer and is not a letter from the petitioner which may be said to rectify the fact of resignation to voluntary retirement.

¶17

The District Library Officer, having taken a specific stand on 18^th February, 2021, forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner to the D.P.P.G. cannot now resign from his stand and take a stand that the petitioner is not entitled to any dues on the strength of the reasons shown before this court. The decision referred to on behalf of the respondent is only in relation to a cut off date and since the said decision has not been placed before the Court, this court has not had the occasion to go into the other factual aspects of the matter.

¶18

In view of the above reasons, this court sees no substance in the stand taken on behalf of the District

¶19

¶20

Library Officer, particularly, when the District Library Officer has issued a communication supporting the stand of the petitioner on 18^th February, 2021. The issue of the alleged delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court is hence not accepted.

¶21

W.P.A.4583 of 2022 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶22

The District Library Officer and the concerned authorities including the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, West Bengal are directed to take steps in accordance with the letter of the District Library Officer, Malda dated 18^th February, 2021 within four weeks from today. The authorities shall intimate the petitioner within one week from taking the decision in that regard. In the event, the petitioner is found to be eligible for his pension and other retirement dues, the authorities shall make the appropriate payment to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date on which such decision is taken.

¶23

The observations made in this order, if any, shall not have a bearing on the authority from proceeding in accordance with law.

¶24

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)

Sitesh Chandra Das @ Sitesh Das v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitesh Chandra Das @ Sitesh Das v. State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreya Acharjee Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nirmala Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Arup Paul and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Tarun Jana Vs the University of Calcutta and Ors.

Annie Rafique Vs Union of India and Ors.

Debomoy Dutta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.