Smt. Lakshmi Paul v. The Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR *** WP.CT/114/2022 Smt Lakshmi Paul Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. Bharat Bhushan ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the respondents February 13, 2023 [SR] Item No.22 Heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

Pursuant to the order No. 1836 dated 04.10.1988, the present petitioner was appointed as Primary School Teacher ("PST" in short) on ad hoc basis and the petitioner joined on 06.10.1988.

After a short break in service during the summer vacation of 1989, the ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time without any break since 28.07.1989 till the date of regularizations of her service on 01.04.2006 and finally the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2017. By the order No.458 dated 06.02.2004, the appropriate authority of the respondents had permitted the petitioner to enroll for the Junior Basic Training Course run by DIET,

(State run institution at Port Blair) to enable the petitioner to secure essential qualification required to consider her for regularization of her service which she had successfully accomplished.

By virtue of Order No.4172 dated 24.10.2007, the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was regularized as PST and as per the condition No.4 stipulated in the said order continuous period of ad hoc service without interruption followed by regularization is to be counted for the purpose of pension and service benefit as admissible under the relevant rules framed in that regard.

By a letter dated 01.01.2008, the Assistant Director (Admn), intimated the Principal of the petitioner school that she was ineligible for pensionary benefit under Rule 13 of CCS Pension Rule, 1972 and Rule 4 of GPF Rule, 1960 since she (the petitioner) was appointed as PST with effect from 01.11.1989.

Subsequently, the Secretary-cum-Director, Directorate of Education issued a corrigendum dated 16.02.2009 whereby and whereunder the condition no.4 of the Order no.4172 dated 24.10.2007 (supra) was deleted and the petitioner's entitlement of pension under old pension scheme was modified and the petitioner was put under the ambit of new pension scheme vide Annexure A-8 to the petition before the Tribunal.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the respondent no.4, the petitioner gave numerous representations during the tenure of her service but in vain.

In view of callous attitude of the Administration, the petitioner preferred OA/351/00239/2019 which was disposed of on 31.10.2022 by passing a reasoned order taking into consideration the different decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. The tribunal in paragraph 8 of the order held thus - "8. In view of the said admitted position, since the applicant was continued from 1988 till April, 2006 on adhoc basis albeit with same intermittent breaks, in view of the law laid down in Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (Supra) it is held that she is eminently eligible to claim pension for the adhoc period of appointment too." From the aforesaid order, it is clear that the petitioner has been granted to the benefit of addition of those service of adhoc period into her service after regularisation so far as retiral benefit is concerned. No contrary decision to negate the aforesaid observation of learned Tribunal is also brought to our notice.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal as given in paragraph 9 which reads thus - "9. Accordingly, the applicant's claim is directed to be reconsidered in terms of Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension)Rules, 1965 and Rule 4 of GPF Rules, 1960 in terms of the note put up by the Assistant Director (Admn.) on 1.1.2008 as in R-8 of the reply."

We feel it expedient to clarify here that paragraph 9 is only a direction for formal ministerial work by the department to carry out the directions given in paragraph 8 of the impugned order. So far as the direction in paragraph 9 is concerned, the appropriate authority has no power either to add anything to the direction given in paragraph 8 and/or subtract anything from paragraph 8. They have only to process the entitlement of the petitioner in accordance with the terms of Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension ) Rules, 1965 and Rule 4 of GPF Rules, 1960 in terms of the direction given in paragraph -8 (supra).

With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of this writ petition affirming the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

Since the petitioner has retired in 2017 and five years have elapsed in the meantime, the appropriate authority is directed to process the application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which appropriate contempt proceedings may be initiated against them on proper petition being filed to that effect in accordance with law.

( Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. )