SUCHANA BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department.

(2.) The Petitioner, who has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2004, has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the Respondents to clear her pensionary and other retirement benefits. Thus, at the time of filing the writ petition on 27.4.2009, although about 4 (four) years had elapsed since the aforesaid date of retirement of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was not paid he pensionary and other retirement benefits. Presently, a stage has arrived at, in which the Director of Pension vide his note dated 13.7.2010 has furnished the report that the Directorate of Pension has furnished a proposal to the Government in the P&PG department for consideration and to take approval for creation and outsourcing of the required manpower with proper justification vide letter dated 2.7.2010. According to the said note, the proposal is under consideration of the Government and as per the proposal, the backlog of about 3,000 cases will be cleared within 3(three) months. The aforesaid note does not furnish any information as to how much time the Government will take in clearing the proposal.

(3.) In the present proceeding, as recorded in the order dated 16.11.2009, it was noticed that the pension case of the Petitioner was delayed because of non-furnishing the affidavit by the Petitioner showing the change of her title from "Das" to "Banerjee". It was observed that the pension case of the Petitioner could not have been delayed on that count and the authorities ought to have asked the Petitioner to submit necessary affidavit. As recorded in the order, as per the submission made by the learned Counsel representing the Directorate, the payment of arrear salary to the Petitioner was delayed as the concerned Head Office of the Education Department did not take steps for release of the arrear salary. Under such circumstances, the Respondents were directed to file individual affidavits.