HASYABALA BANIK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : THE aforesaid two writ applications were ordered to be taken, up analogously as the point involved in these writ applications are common.

(2.) THE husband of the writ petitioner was appointed as a teacher in Netaji Siksha Mandir R.P. School, Badamtola Palta, Dt. - North 24 Parganas. Subsequent to the appointment he was promoted to the post of "A" category head teacher and thereafter competed the refresher course of basic training. THE service of the deceased teacher was subsequently approved as head teacher in category "A" w.e.f. 20th December 1958. THE said deceased teacher all along received all the payment as "A" category teacher till he died on 10th September 1971. THE writ petitioner made an application on 6th October 1971 for extending the family pension. In the mean time a scheme was framed by the State of West Bengal namely West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement-Behefit) Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter referred as DCRB Scheme 1981) which came into effect on and from 1 st April 1981. THE object and purpose of the said scheme was to extend the pension/family pension to those employees who served under the recognized non-government aided educational institutions and have retired or died in harness. THE benefits were extended to both the teaching and non-teaching employees governed under the said Scheme subject to the adjustment of the pension and ex gratia increases as were drawn by the said employee. THEreafter, the State Government issued a Circular under Memo No. 123-SE(B) dated April 12, 2006 whereby and wherein the benefit of the pension/family pension was restricted to those employees who have opted for Contributory Provident Fund and pension under the Old Scheme.

(3.) MR. Kanai Lal Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have committed illegality in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner solely on the ground that the teacher who died in harness did not render 20 years in approved qualifying service. He further submits that by a subsequent Government Order under Memo No. 539-SE (PandB)/SL-SS-61/(10) dated 1 st November, 2010 the benefits have been extended to an employee who have not rendered 20 years in approved qualifying service and thus there is no point in withholding and/or denying the said benefit to the writ petitioner.