SISIR KUMAR MONDAL Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 5th March, 1969 by the concerned Managing Committee of the concerned school. The appointment was duly approved by the State Government. On 15. 5. 1985 the Government introduced a scheme for pension which would be applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the private school. The teachers who were in service on 1st April, 1981 were required to exercise the option for pension and gratuity within 90 days of the issue of the scheme. At that time the petitioner duly opted for CPF (Contributory Provident Fund)-cum-Gratuity Scheme, and deposits of contribution of both the employer's and employee's share were regularly made. Subsequently, by Government Order no. 496-E. D. N. (BVIM-39/91 dated 16. 12. 1991, an opportunity was given to the employees to revise the option. The revised option had to be exercised within 90 days, i. e. , on or before 16. 3. 92. In order to exercise the option, the employees/ teachers had to make an application in writing to the school. In order to get the benefit of the pension, it was necessary to adjust the contribution of the employer together with interest accrued thereon which had been credited in the account of the teacher. On the amount being so refunded to the Government, the head of the institution was required to take the necessary action. As stated above the option under the circular dated 16th December, 1991 had to be exercised within ninety days from the date of the aforesaid order. It was further stipulated that fresh option so exercised shall be final and no further change of option will be allowed. It is alleged that the petitioner after coming to know about the aforesaid order exercised his revised option on 24th January, 1992. He submitted the option form to the Headmaster of the school in compliance of the instructions for exercise of the revised option. However, the meeting of the Managing committee which was scheduled to be held on 22nd February, 1992 was adjourned. Thereafter, the petitioner made enquiries on a number of occasions and requested the school authorities to take further steps in the matter. The petitioner wanted to refund the entire employers contribution with interest and/or additional interest. However, no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioner claims that he was always ready and willing and is even now ready and willing to refund the employer's contribution of provident fund together with interest and/or additional interest. However, the concerned authorities are not taking the refund of the employer's contribution of provident fund in the absence of specific Government Order to that effect. The petitioner had even offered to receive the future salary without the benefit of the provident fund. This was, however, not accepted.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has again undertaken to refund the entire contribution of employer's share on account of the provident fund along with interest and/or additional interest. The petitioner also brought to the notice of the authorities that in similar circumstances twenty teaching/non-teaching staff of Purusrah High School, Hooghly had been allowed to change the option. He has even produced a copy of the order dated 6 December, 1999 as Annexure "p-5" to the writ petition. On the basis of the order dated 6th December, 1999, large number of teaching and non-teaching staff have been granted the benefit of pension even after retirement. The claim of the petitioner was ultimately accepted by the school on 10 April, 2004. The necessary resolution was passed accepting the change of option from Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity to the General Provident Fund and Pension including the Family Pension-cu-mgratuity. The claim was duly forwarded to respondent No. 3. This communication has been attached with the writ petition as Annexure "p-5". Despite the receipt of the aforesaid resolution the respondents did not take any action. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN spite of opportunities having been granted, the respondents did not care to file any affidavit-in-opposition. In spite of the fact that no opposition had been filed, the learned Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition by order dated 9 March, 2006.