The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Parimal Chakraborty & Ors.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was a organizing teacher in Uday Chand Vidyapith Junior High School at Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur on February 28, 1979. As the said school was not recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education by its letter dated 29th November, 2000. The school got recognition from 1st May, 2000. The petitioner was also recognized as a assistant teacher in the said school from the same date. He was appointed in service from 1st May, 2000 to 31st January, 2010 which is just less than 10 years. According to laws of Death Cum Retirement Scheme, 1981, if the person is not qualified or experienced for 10 years than the pensionary benefits are not approved nor accepted. In his orders dated 8 August 2014, the Secretary of School Education of the Government of the West Bengal Department held that a forgiveness of a pensionable deficit of a qualifying service is not allowed for the petitioner as the Death-cum-Recruitment-Benefit-Scheme 1981 cannot be made applicable in the case of the West Bengal non-governmental educational institution. This school was recognized by the Board. The District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education, Western Bengal) Government approved the naming of certain organizing instructors of the newly recognized junior high school on 04.01.2001 with effect from 1 May 2000 for three years as a coeducational school. Further, The Board of Directors definitely stated in the Memo of 29 Novembers 2000 that the District Level Investigation Team had a fresh inspection on 16 January 1999. The letter of the district inspector of the school, Uttar Dinajpur, dated 2 November 2010 appears to be issued following its recognition as from 1 May 2000. The District Inspector authorized the appointment, effective on 1 May 2000, of the petitioner as an assistant teacher.
Arguments by Appellant
Learned Counsel stated that the issue of teacher’s approval does not arise unless the educational institution is acknowledged. Approval follows recognition. It is not essential that the teacher remain continuously in service for many years before recognition. It was further claimed that Chapter III of Rule 6(d) is used to illustrate that the teacher must complete 10 years of continuous service as a quality service in order to become eligible under the 1981 schemes, and that this service must be counted on as from the date of the approval of the appointment. The authority to cancel the pension benefits for six months can only be extended to those employees nominated to be temporary workers in a permanent position and if necessary.
Arguments by Respondents
Learned Counsel submits that It is alleged that an intimate before us has not been appointed as a provisional teacher in the unrecognised establishment against any post sanctioned by the appellants and therefore, since recognition of the Institute was granted late in its initial nomination as teacher at the educational institution, no appointment would occur. It is fiercely claimed that writ petitioners are not entitled to any remedy on the basis of delay, latches, or acquiescence because they have obtained all other eligible retiral benefits submitted by the writ petition after a significant wait.
In this situation, it is obvious that there was a gap of over one year and four months between the date of DLIT inspection and approval, and the qualifying service deficit was just three months. Furthermore, the Government circular dated February 2, 2009, in accordance with Paragraph 7(e)(iii) of the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Education Institution Employees, allows for a six-month suspension. The said Government circular dated February 2, 2009 clearly states that any fraction of a year of service of three months or more shall be treated as a completed six-month period of service and counted as qualifying service for determining retiral benefits, and any period of service less than three months shall be treated as non-qualifying service for determining retiral benefits.
The appeal is failed. In accordance with the relevant requirements, the school authority for whom the petitioner has performed his duty as an assistant teacher or the authority involved should undertake immediate action to extend the retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.