Ashim Kumar Dutta v. The Managing Director,North Bengal Transport Corporation,Coochbehar And ORS

08.05.2023 sb.

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction WPA 932 of 2023 Ashim Kumar Dutta -versus The Managing Director, North Bengal State Transport Corporation & Ors. Mr. Arjun Chowdhury Ms. Pratusha Dutta Chowdhury Mr. Bikash Singh Ms. Riya Agarwal ...For the Petitioner.

Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh .. For NBSTC.

Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahashaya ... For the respondent nos. 2 ad 3 Subir Kumar Saha Mr. Pretom Das ... For the State.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

The petitioner says that he joined services of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short NBSTC) on 8th September, 1989. The petitioner thereafter had continued to serve NBSTC as regular employee upon receiving the regular salary and emoluments with increments and enhancement from time to time. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 7th January, 2017. The Pension Payment Order Enquiry (PPO

Enquiry) issued in 2021 shows that the actual service of the petitioner is 21 years 1 month and 21 days while the pensionable service is 19 years, 8 months and 17days, though his date of joining is clearly stated to be 8th September, 1989 and the date of exist is 7th January, 2017. The petitioner says that the PPO will be issued as per the PPO Enquiry and as such the pensionable service will be short by 519 days which will reduce the retiral benefits, including the pension amount of the petitioner. The petitioner prays for issuance of a fresh PPO Enquiry after cancelling the one, already issued and a PPO stating that the pensionable service of the petitioner is 21 years 1 month and 21 days instead of 19 years 8 months and 17 days. The petitioner has made a representation through his advocate on 23rd July, 2022 to the Managing Director, NBSTC, Cooch Behar, being the respondent no.1.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I think that justice will be sub-served if the respondent no.1 considers the petitioner's representation dated 23rd July, 2022 in the context of the pensionable service and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from date after giving the petitioner a personal hearing to substantiate that the petitioner's pensionable service is 21 years 1 month and 21 days instead of 19 years 8 months and 17 days as recorded in the PPO Enquiry.

In the event, the respondent no.1 finds that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionable service of 21 years 1 month and 21 days instead of 19 years 8 months and 17 days he shall take necessary steps for the PPO Enquiry to be corrected and a fresh PPO be issued to the petitioner. Even in the event, the respondent no.1 find that the petitioner is not entitled to pensionable service of 21 years 1 month and 21 days but is entitled to 19 years 8 months and 17 days, he shall take expeditious steps for issuance of the PPO to start the petitioner's pension without any further delay. The writ petition is accordingly disposed.

Since I have not called for any affidavits, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)