TAPAN KUMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal for short). He retired from service as a Work Assistant under the Public Works Department on 31/8/2021. He has served the Government for nine years eight months and twenty days. There was thus a short-fall of three months and ten days in the requisite qualifying service for the purposes of grant of benefit of pension. The petitioner sought relaxation of the qualifying service in terms of Rule 36 of the West Bengal Services (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the DCRB Rules). The same was disallowed on 14/7/2023 by a reasoned order passed by the Chief Engineer (Head Quarter) in terms of an earlier order passed in O.A. 667 of 2022. It is this order passed by the Chief Engineer which was the subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 613 of 2023 filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that the matter has been considered by the Chief Engineer and a reasoned order has been passed thereupon in consultation with the competent authority being the Finance Department, refused to interfere with the reasoned order. The Original Application has been disposed of thus without passing any order.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has misdirected itself by relying upon the order passed by the Chief Engineer in consultation with the Finance Department. The power of the Government to condone deficiency in service is specified in Rule 36 of the DCRB Rules. Since the petitioner has placed reliance on this Rule we propose to reproduce the same herein, which reads as follows:

(3.) Referring to the provision, it is submitted that the Rule contemplates condoning the deficiency in qualifying service of a Government servant up to six months. The exceptions are contained in the note below the Rule. The petitioner's case does not come within any of the exceptions curbed out in the note below of the Rule 36 of DCRB Rules and therefore, the decision of the Chief Engineer, as affirmed by the Tribunal is unsustainable.