Umananda Roy v. The Port Blair Municipal Council, And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/913/2023 Shri Umananda Roy ... Petitioner Vs.

The Port Blair Municipal Council and Anr.

... Respondents Mrs. Anjili Nag ...for the Petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ...for the Respondents September 26, 2023 (M.A.Mobin) Item No.11 The Writ Petitioner is now retired. He has retired from the services of the Respondent no.1 i.e. Port Blair Municipal Council with effect from July 31, 2023. His retirement was for the reason of his attaining age of superannuation. The petitioner has been released with the provisional pension since after his retirement. The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the Respondent authority has withheld his regular pension for no justifiable reason. To seek redress of his grievance as above, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

Mrs.

Anjili Nag, learned Advocate, who representing the Writ Petitioner has submitted that before superannuation on July 31, 2023 the Writ Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated September 14, 2021 alleging some misconduct against him. It is further

submitted that the Writ Petitioner has replied to the said show cause notice immediately thereafter by dint of his letter dated September 20, 2021. It has further been submitted that since thereafter the respondents have closed the matter there and allowed the petitioner to duly perform his duty as an employee of the Respondent, till the date of his superannuation as above. He says that there is no departmental proceeding or any contemplation of the same by the Respondents to justify its purported action of withdrawing of pension of the Writ Petitioner. On these facts, the learned Advocate has prayed for adequate relief for the Writ Petitioner by directing the Respondent Authorities to allow him regular pension.

Mr.

Shatadru Chakraborty, learned Advocate, representing the respondents, has expressed serious objection to the contention and prayer of the Writ Petitioner.

He says that departmental enquiry contemplated against the Writ Petitioner and in accordance with law the respondents have sought for necessary permission of the appropriate authority to proceed against him. He has also stated that necessary vigilance clearance has also been sought for. In support of his contention he has submitted certain documents, which are taken note of and kept with the record. It has also been his prayer that the matter may be disposed of on affidavits.

Contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding cannot be a perpetual and never ending phenomena. This Court has

noted that a show cause notice was issued to the present Writ Petitioner by the Respondent Authority back in the year 2021. The reply to the same has also been submitted within due time. In spite of that, till the date of retirement of the present Writ Petitioner in the year 2023 the Respondent Authorities did not find it convenient to proceed against the present Writ Petitioner, in case there was any imputation or charge of misconduct against him. It is also noticed that after receipt of reply to the show cause filed by the present Writ Petitioner, the Respondents had not bothered to accept or reject the same thereby creating an impasse over the issue.

From the documents submitted on behalf of the Respondents it appears that the Respondents have only come up from their slumber in the year 2023, showing a gesture as if they are pursuing with a process in continuation of the show cause notice dated September 14, 2021 issued to the present Writ Petitioner. Unfortunately, this found hopelessly to be an afterthought act of the Respondent authority to deprive the Writ Petitioner from his legitimate right to the pensionary benefits, after discharging service for a prolonged period of time.

The respondent authorities, in the considered opinion of this Court, should not be allowed to proceed with the purported inaction in not allowing the present Writ Petitioner his statutory pensionary benefits, for the reason

that such action of the respondent authorities is only unreasonable, manifestly erroneous and arbitrary. On the discussion as above, this Writ Petition is allowed with the direction issued upon the Respondents to allow the regular pensionary benefits to the present Writ Petitioner immediately and not later than two weeks' time from the date of communication of this order to them. Since the Affidavit-in-Opposition has not been invited the allegations set out in the Writ Petition except the admitted facts are deemed to be denied.

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions as above, however, without any order as to costs. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)