DIBAKAR KUMAR SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petitioner has impugned an inaction on the part of the respondent no. 3 - 5 to release the arrear salary and also to pay the entire retiral benefits. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Kamardanga Free Primary School, West Dinajpur on and from the month of September 1963. The petitioner used to put his signature on the monthly return which was submitted to the Sub-Inspector of School at the end of each month. Some discrepancy arose regarding putting the signature in the third column of the monthly return below one Sri Mahiuddin who was appointed subsequently. The salary of the writ petitioner was not paid from the months between June to November, 1979, April to December, 1980 and January to December, 1981 and from January to April, 1982. It is contended by the writ petitioner that during such period he rendered his services continuously. Subsequently the writ petitioner was recommended to undergo the primary training from March 1982 for a period of eight months and during the training period the petitioner was paid salary.

(2.) AFTER successful completion of the said training the petitioner joined the said school on and from January 1983 but the salary was again stopped by the authorities. The petitioner made several representations. The then President of the District School Board issued memo no. 94/3 dated 6.5.1988 directing the members of the said Board to hold an enquiry and submit the report to the office of the Sub-Inspector of School, Primary Education. It is contended that no report has been filed as yet.

(3.) MR. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3, District Primary School Council, Uttar Dinajpur, contends that the district West Dinajpur was bifurcated into two districts i.e. North Dinajpur and the West Dinajpur and now the school where the petitioner is working comes within the control and management of the District Primary School council, North Dinajpur. He submits that the then Chairman of the Council North Dinajpur resolved the long pending disputes by issuing memo no. 252/2 dated 14.5.1996 for release of the pension to the writ petitioner on and form the month of April 1996. He further contends that in absence of any attendance register and in view of the issuance of memo no. 223 dated 3.2.1983 by which the salary was withheld, there is no available record for cancellation of the said memo no. 223 dated 3.2.1983 excepting that by a subsequent memo no. 252/2 dated 14.5.1996 by which the salary was released on and from the month of April 1996. He further contends that the petitioner thereafter received the monthly salary up to the age of superannuation and was granted the extension of service up to the age of 65 years. He further contends that during the pendency of the writ application the authorities have paid the provisional pension. He strenuously argued that the petitioner himself executed and submitted a declaration on 24.5.1996 and abandoned the claim of the arrear salary, if there be any. He thus submits that the claim of the writ petitioner is not tenable.