BAKUL BASAK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher of Bhodanagpara Free Primary School situated in the district of Dakshin Dinajpur vide memo dated 9th August, 1983, with effect from 18th August, 1983. Since then she has been continuing to discharge her duties as an assistant primary teacher in the said school. She filed the instant writ petition on 26th August, 2010, stating that under the Death-cum-Retiral Benefits Scheme, 1981, all teaching and non-teaching staff who were appointed on or after 1 st April, 1981, ] would be automatically governed by the Death-cum-Retiral Benefits Scheme, 1981 and no other scheme. It has been stated on behalf of the writ petitioner that having been appointed with effect from 18th August, 1983, i.e., after 1st April, 1981, she will be governed by the Death-cum-Retiral Benefits Scheme, 1981. However, the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matter by not allowing her switch over from Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to the pension including family pension-cum-gratuity scheme. He submits that in such circumstances, the writ petitioner ought to get the benefit of the 1981 Scheme.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that the writ petitioner has approached this Court after twenty- seven years and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. She further submits that, in any event, it would appear from a copy of a letter of the writ petitioner, being annexure 'P-2' at page 15 of the writ petition, that the writ petitioner was well aware of the option given to her in terms of the 1981 Scheme. She submits that in the said letter, which was addressed to the District Inspector of Schools (PE), District - Dakshin Dinajpur, the petitioner herself acknowledged the existence of the circular dated 16th December, 1991, whereby another opportunity was given to the teachers, who were in the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme to switch over to the pension, including family pension-cum-gratuity, by exercising their option within a specified period. However, the writ petitioner has stated in her said letter that this circular was not circulated widely and consequently her school authority did not get the said circular and as such she was not aware of the said circular. Learned Advocate for the State submits that the writ petitioner could have very well exercised her option even in the year 1991, but she did not do so and instead cited ignorance in the year 2009 to request for grant of pension including family pension-cum-gratuity by writing the said letter to the District Inspector of Schools (Dakshin Dinajpur).