LAKSHMAN CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined in the service as Chawkidar in the concerned Gram Panchayat on 3rd September, 1968 and subsequently, by operation of law, he became the Gram Panchayat Karmee. The due date of retirement of the petitioner is 30th September, 2003.

(2.) It appears from the record that on 25th March, 1999, the petitioner made a representation on being permanently incapacitated. Nothing was done. A subsequent representation was made on 23rd July, 2001. Even thereafter when nothing was done, the writ jurisdiction of this Court was invoked and an order was passed by Justice D.P. Kundu on 4th October, 2001. In disposing of the writ petition being W.P. 11516(W) of 2001 (Lakshman Ch. Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Ors.), Justice D.P. Kundu directed the Chief Medical Officer Health, Malda, to submit a report to the concerned authority not later than a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. It also appears that on 29th September, 2001, the petitioner was examined. The date is prior to one day of completion of 33 years of service. As per the rule, if 33 years of service is completed, in that case other benefits inclusive of giving service on compassionate ground to any of the heirs and legal representatives will not be considered. In the instant case, the petitioner has taken a plaque of unfair play by showing a letter dated 4th July, 2001 written by the authority concerned to the petitioner under Memo No. 917 dated 4th July, 2001. In any event, now, after several persuasion and considering the petitioner's case, a Memo No. 15 B/M G.P. dated 20th August, 2002 was issued by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat declaring the petitioner as permanently incapacitated with effect from 29th April, 2002. On the other hand, the ground of giving service to his heirs and legal representative had been refused by the authority concerned on the ground that the question of consideration of giving service to the heirs or legal representatives who are permanently incapacitated persons will arise provided one is permanently incapacitated at least prior to the period of two years from the actual date of retirement. The period has crossed by 26 days.

(3.) It appears to me that the petitioner is fighting for the cause since 1999. The jurisdiction of writ Court was invoked prior to the period of 33 years and an order was passed. Therefore, since the paramount consideration is the representation to the authority concerned and also by invoking the writ jurisdiction in which the Court was pleased to direct to complete the course of action by passing a medical report and communication to the authority, petitioner cannot be said to be declared as permanently incapacitated after the period of 33 years. But the question arose in respect of acceptance of salary, if any, for the months after the period of 33 years till the actual date of giving effect as permanently incapacitated. Although the petitioner stated that he was not ready and willing to work and intended to refuse to take the salary but since the petitioner has accepted the same, this Court directs that such salary has to be adjusted as against final retiral benefit to be paid to the petitioner. Therefore, save and except the same, the petitioner will be entitled to get all the benefits as permanently incapacitated whichever is, in spite of his retirement in such situation subject to completion of 33 years.