MD. SHAMSUDDIN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to quash the memo no.76/01(06)/LS/RO/IC/259/LS/2019 dtd. 10/8/2020 issued by the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal and for a further direction commanding the respondents to sanction pension and other retiral benefits calculating the length of service on and from 1/5/2000. The appointment of the petitioner was approved vide memo no.167/LS dtd. 29/12/2010 with effect from 1/5/2000. The petitioner retired from service on superannuation on 31/1/2018. Pursuant to a direction passed in W.P. No.12213(W) of 2019 filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner of School Education passed an order on 10/8/2020. By the said order, the memo dtd. 29/12/2010 approving the appointment of your petitioner with effect from 1/5/2000 was withdrawn and the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Birbhum was directed to issue a rectified approval memo in favour of the petitioner with effect from 19/11/2010 i.e. the date of the order passed in WP No.18827(W) of 2008. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Commissioner of School Education challenged the same by filing the instant writ petition.

(2.) The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner of School Education directed issuance of rectified approval memo by treating the date of approval of the petitioner in service with effect from 19/11/2010. He contends that the respondent authority could not have issued such order thereby modifying the date of approval after the retirement of the petitioner from service. He, thus, submits that by virtue of the said order, the right of the petitioner to get pension has been taken away.

(3.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that the Commissioner of School Education after taking into consideration the existing rule and Government order as well as the observation order passed by the Hon "ble Supreme Court of India and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case held that the memo dtd. 29/12/2010 is withdrawn and directed issuance of rectified approval memo in favour of the petitioner with effect from 19/11/2010. He further submits that since the petitioner cannot be said to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from any date prior to 19/11/2010, any period prior to 19/11/2010 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying length of service for grant of pension. He thus submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get any pension as the service rendered by him falls short of the qualifying length of service for being entitled to pension.