Dismissed

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya Ans Ors. v. Dr Pranab Kumar Bandyopadhyay and Anr.

Calcutta HC11 Jan 2023FMA/329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench upheld the Single Bench's direction that an erstwhile Professor is entitled to remuneration for services rendered during re-employment years, rejecting the University's defence that State Government approval was a prerequisite.

What did the court decide?

The appeals and connected petitions stand dismissed upholding the order directing payment of remuneration.

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya Ans… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

3 Court No. 11 11.01.2023 G.S.Das

¶2

FMA 329 of 2022 With CAN 2 of 2022

¶3

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa-vidyalaya & Ors.

¶4

-Vs-

¶5

Dr. Pranab Kumar Bandopadhyay & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Suman De

¶7

… for the Appellants Mr. Ranajit Chtterjee Mr. Aniruddha Mitra … for the Private Respondent Mr. Jahar Lal De Mr. Shamim-ul-Bari

¶8

… for the Private Respondent … for the State-respondents

¶9

Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of their

¶10

name/names as printed above in the cause title.

¶11

The facts pertaining to this appeal are fairly admitted.

¶12

The appellant is the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa-Vidyalaya (for short, BCKV).

¶13

The writ petitioner/the respondent was in service with the appellant/BCKV as a Professor and, upon his retirement, he was offered re-employment by the appellant/BCKV which was extended from year to year for a maximum period of five years.

¶14

The writ petitioner/respondent to this appeal was paid his remuneration for the first, second and fifth years of his re-employment.

¶15

The dispute in the writ petition and in this

¶16

¶17

appeal arises from the fact that the remuneration for the service rendered by the writ petitioner/the respondent to BCKV for the third and fourth years of his re-employment has not been paid.

¶18

The Hon’ble Single Bench had directed payment of remuneration to the writ petitioner in view of the actual service rendered by the writ petitioner to BCKV during the 3^rd and 4^th years of his re-employment.

¶19

The appellant/BCKV argues through Mr. Suman De, Learned Counsel, that payment of remuneration to the writ petitioner is contingent upon approval of his re-employment by the State Government.

¶20

It is submitted that the State-Government is yet to formalise the approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner for the said third and fourth years of his reemployment.

¶21

The stand of the appellant/BCKV is contested by the State-respondents represented by Mr. Jahar Lal De, Learned Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Bari, Learned Counsel, on the ground that the formalities connected to seeking approval of the writ petitioner for the third and fourth years of his reemployment have not been completed by the appellant/BCKV. In the absence of completion of the formalities in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the State Government has no obligation to release the fund in favour of BCKV towards the

¶22

¶23

remuneration of the writ petitioner.

¶24

The writ petitioner is represented by Mr. Chatterjee, Learned Counsel, who asserts that it is not in dispute that the services of the writ petitioner were utilised by the appellant/BCKV for the third and fourth years of his re-employment.

¶25

The completion of formalities between the appellant/BCKV and the State is inter se in nature and, at this stage after his services have been utilised as well as remunerated for the other 1^st , 2^nd and 5^th years, cannot affect the accrued right of the writ petitioner of pay against work.

¶26

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and the materials placed, this Court accepts the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Bench directing the payment of remuneration to the writ petitioner for the services actually rendered during the third and fourth years of his re-employment.

¶27

The reasoning and directions of the Hon’ble Single Bench therefore suffer from no infirmity.

¶28

FMA 329 of 2022 along with CAN 2 of 2022 stand accordingly dismissed .

¶29

Since Affidavits are not invited, other allegations made are deemed not to have been admitted by the parties.

¶30

All parties to act on a server copy of this order duly obtained from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court,

¶31

¶32

Calcutta.

¶33

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶34

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Subrata Talukdar,J.)

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya Ans Ors. v. Dr Pranab Kumar Bandyopadhyay and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya Ans Ors. v. Dr Pranab Kumar Bandyopadhyay and Anr.

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

State Bank of India Amd Ors. Vs Debi Mandal and Anr.

M/S Eastern Coalfield Ltd. Vs M/S Kjali Mejhain and Ors.

Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Nitu Devi and Others

Sanghamitra Bhattacharya Vs Sudeshna Kar and Ors.

Raj Narayan Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Julficar Sardar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.