DISTRICT BOARD Vs. JOGESH CHANDRA BASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for compelling the defendant District Board to contribute to the plaintiff's provident fund account. The defendant is the District Board of Khulna and the plaintiff is a retired employee of the board. He retired in October 1936 after rendering 31 years continuous good service. During this period he subscribed to the provident fund maintained by the District Board and the District Board also contributed its quota to that fund. The case of the plaintiff is (1) that on his retirement he became entitled to an additional contribution from the District Board at the rate of half a month's pay for each complete year of service rendered by him, subject to a maximum of 15 month's pay under Rule 5A of the Provident Fund Rules of the Board, 2) that the board granted to him only eight months pay as such additional contribution, under that rule and (3) that he was entitled under the rule to a contribution of further seven months pay. The case of the defendant is (1) that the additional grant under the rule is absolutely at the discretion of the District Board, (2) that the plaintiff acquired no right to claim any contribution under the rule and (3) that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable without notice under Section 146, Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1885.

(2.) The Courts below held that Section 146, Bengal Local Self-Government Act, 1885, did not contemplate a suit against the District Board as such, but was applicable only to suits against the members of any District Board or against any of their officers. This is the plain reading of the section, and we are in complete agreement with the views expresseed by the learned District Judge in this respect. As regards the merits of the claim, both the Courts held (1) that the question whether or not any additional contribution as contemplated by the rule should be made in any particular case was at the discretion of the District Board, but (2) that, if the District Board in any case decided to make an additional contribution, the rate fixed by the rule was imperative subject, to the maximum prescribed by it. On this view both the Courts below decreed the plaintiff's claim. Dr. Basak appearing in support of the appeal contends that the rule simply empowers the District Board to make an additional contribution and imposes limits on this power as to (1) the object of the grant, (2) the rate on which contribution can be made and (3) the maximum that can be contributed. It does not create any obligation on the part of the District Board to contribute anything under any circumstances, and does not confer on the employees any right or claim to any contribution. According to Dr. Basak the rule reads thus: ...the District Board may grant...an additional contribution at any rate not exceeding half a month's pay for each complete year of service...subject to a maximum of 15 months pay....

(3.) Dr. Sen Gupta appearing for the respondent contends that no rule was needed for giving the District Board power to make a grant of this character. The District Board was already given that power by section 53 (fourthly), Bengal Local Self-Government Act which made the District Fund applicable to the payment of any grants made for supplementary contributions by members of such establishments to any Provident Fund created under Section 33A....