DHIRENDRA NATH SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were working as Tahsildars under the Government of West Bengal on fixed monthly remuneration basis with commission on collection. They were appointed Tahasildars in and after 1955. Thereafter, in 1984, they were all absorbed in the posts of Bhumi Sahayak under the integrated set up of the Land Reforms under the Government of West Bengal. They all have since retired from the Government service as Bhumi Sabayaks. They now claim pensionary and other retirement benefits. But, the respondent Government of West Bengal is not giving them the benefit on the ground that they are not entitled to pension because they have not rendered requisite length of qualifying service in the post of Bhumi Sahayak. The petitioners want that their past services as Tahasildars be counted for the purpose of reckoning qualifying service for pension for the last posts they held as Bhumi Sahayaks. Under Rule 15 of the West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977, the Tahsildara were part time Government servants. The learned Advocate for the respondent State relies on this Rule in support of his argument that the petitioners who were only part time Government Servants while working as Tahsildars cannot claim their service in that post to be taken into consideration for computing the period of qualifying service.

(2.) I am unable, however, to agree with this submission. A part-time Government Servant is also a Government Servant pro Union. In this connection, the learned Advocate for respondent State attracts my attention to Rules 17 and 18 of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. Rule 17 states that subject to the provisions of the Rules, the qualifying service of a Government Servant shall commence from the date, he takes charge of the Office to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. Rule 18 provides that service of an Officer does not qualify for Pension unless it conforms to certain conditions, namely, that the service must be under Government and the employment must be substantive and permanent or of permanent status or quasi permanent and the service must be paid by the Government. It is not the contention of tire State respondent that the incumbents of the posts of Bhumi Sahayak are not at all entitled to pensionary benefits. What the contention of the learned Advocate for the State respondent is, is that the incumbents concerned must have served in the posts of Bhumi Sahayak for the period of 'qualifying service' and any service rendered by them in their erstwhile capacity as Tahasildar shall not be counted for the purpose of computing the period of qualifying service.

(3.) In this connection, it is to be mentioned that it is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the Tahsildars were entitled to serve upto 58 years of age and they could also be given an extension of service for two years more, that is, upto 60 years of age. But, after their absorption in the posts of Bhumi Sahayak, they have to retire after attaining 58 years and so, virtually, their length of service has been reduced by two years by reason of their absorption on the posts of Bhumi Sahayak. It is also significant to note in this connection that the petitioners' appointment to the posts of Bhumi Sahayak was by way of absorption which itself shows that their past service was in the contemplation of the Government when formulating the policy of appointing the Tahsildars to the posts of Bhumi Sahayak. It may also be mentioned here that the posts of Tahsildar were abolished with the creation of the new posts of Bhumi Sahayak. The Government of West Bengal, Board of Revenue, by Memo No. 9059(16)TDR/3184 dated September 12, 1984 enumerated and formulated the background, the principle and the policies of absorption of the Tahsildars in the posts of Bhumi Sabayak. One of the conditions of such absorption was that the Tahsildars would surrender the State's share with interest thereon in their Contributory Provident Fund and their own share in the Contributory Provident Fund would be transferred to General Provident Fund to be opened on such absorption. In this connection, we may take note of the principle operating behind Rule 22 of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which provides inter alia that the period of temporary or officiating service in an Establishment wherein Contributory Provident Fund benefits are allowed shall not count towards qualifying service unless the Government contribution including interest is refunded in full to Government.