BODHISATTA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the order dated 4th June, 2013, the District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas, has prepared a report in the form of an affidavit, which may be taken on record. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application as well as the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas, it appears that the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ proceeding is in respect of a teacher who has resumed his duties in a primary school under the District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas, but has not paid his usual entitlements.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the Chairman, District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas, by his memo dated 6th November, 2012, addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Schools, Basirhat New Circle, North 24-Parganas, permitted the writ petitioner to join Mukunda Kati Free Primary School immediately, with his existing subsistence allowance. It is the specific case of the petitioner that having once been allowed to resume his duties, all entitlements ought to have been released in favour of the petitioner. However, the concerned authority has chosen to pay the petitioner only the subsistence allowance, which is impermissible in law.

(3.) From the report in the form of an affidavit, it however appears that the petitioner had made a representation before the Chairman, District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas, on 28th September, 2012, which he has not disclosed in the instant writ petition. It appears from the said representation that the petitioner was essentially seeking re-engagement, in spite of being under deemed suspension. It has been further stated by the Chairman of the District Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas, in her report that after receiving a copy of the instant writ petition she came to know from her learned counsel about the order/direction of this Court in an earlier writ petition which had been moved by the petitioner. Since she had no personal knowledge of the earlier order/direction of this Court, she had allowed the writ petitioner to join his duty, with his existing subsistence allowance on 6th November, 2012, on the basis of his representation. The Chairperson, having no alternative, has prayed leave before this Court to allow withdrawal of her order dated 6th November, 2012, which the petitioner seeks to rely on in the present writ proceeding.