EMAJUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner applied for voluntary retirement as he was medically incapacitated, from the post of Assistant Teacher in Wahedpur Primary School in the district Malda. Rule 14 (b) of rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Primary Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal is set out hereunder ;

(2.) In accordance with the said rule, when a primary teacher is declared permanently incapacitated by the competent medical board at least two years before he attains the age of superannuation. in case his family is in extreme economic hardship after such retirement his ward, if he is eligible is entitled to be appointed as primary teacher on compassionate ground. In this case the writ petitioner before attaining the age of 58 years duly applied before the competent authority on February 22, 1996 praying for leave for his illness. Subsequently as his physical condition deteriorated on March, 1996, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on medical ground and prayed for appointment of his son on compassion- ate ground under rule 14(b). The writ petitioner's son made a representation on the said date. Accordingly, the Sub-Inspector of School by his memo dated March 22, 1996 forwarded the representation of the petitioner with relevant documents to the higher authority for consideration. As no steps were being taken by the authority concerned the writ petitioner moved this Court on December 24, 1996 when (his Court directed medical examination to be done in terms of Rule 14 (b). The said order was immediately communicated to the authority concerned, however, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board after a lapse of about six months and he was found permanently incapacitated by the Medical Board. On the basis of such medical examination, the petitioner was allowed to retire prematurely on August 18, 1997. However, the petitioner's son was not. taken in the service and such prayer of the petitioner was refused by the authority concerned on the ground that on the date of retirement the petitioner crossed the age of 58 years and as such the Rule 14 (b) has no application and the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of Rule 14 (b). It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 23/2/1997. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the writ petitioner applied for his premature retirement much before the attaining the age of 58 years since his application was not considered he approached this court and obtained an order for his medical examination and that order was passed by this Court when the writ petitioner did not attain the age of 58 years. However, it is unfortunate that there has been inordinate delay in carrying out the order of this Court with regard to the medical examination of the writ petitioner.

(3.) Learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents Council submits that Rule 14 (b) cannot be relaxed. According to the learned Advocate, appearing for the Council, immediately after receipt of the application council sent it for necessary action of the higher authority, delay, if any, in conducting the medical examination should not entitle the writ petitioner to avail of the benefit of Rule 14 (b).