Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1003 (CAL)

Nanda Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal

2014-11-03

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, TAPASH MOOKHERJEE

body2014
Judgment : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29th April, 2014 in W.P. No. 11986(W) of 2014 at the instance of the writ petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge by holding inter-alia that the writ court cannot transpose itself as an appellate authority over a particular authority which has performed its obligation to abide by the specific directions given by the Court and rendered a decision in the matter supported with cogent reasons. The learned Trial Judge also held that the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked in such a case, unless of-course, the decision so rendered by the concerned authority was palpably wrong or arbitrary or perverse or smacked of malafide motive or had been rendered without adhering to the specific directions given by the Court. Holding as such, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the writ petition. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the instant case. Here is the case where Chhanda Mukherjee who was a teacher in a primary school under Burdwan District Primary School Council died-in-harness while she was in service. She nominated one of her brothers as a first nominee in respect of her death-cum-retiral benefits. The writ petitioner was nominated as a second nominee in respect of her death-cum-retiral benefits. The first nominee died immediately after the death of the said teacher before disbursement of the death-cum-retiral benefits of the said deceased teacher. Subsequently, the writ petitioner claimed release of the death-cum-retiral benefits of the said deceased teacher in her favour as the second nominee of the said deceased teacher. Her claim for release of gratuity was allowed by the concerned authority and as per the direction passed by the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, pension payment order was issued for release of the gratuity in her favour as the second nominee of the said deceased teacher. The pension payment order was accordingly issued and gratuity was paid to her. However, her claim for release of the provident fund and group insurance still remains unsettled. No decision has yet been taken by the concerned authority with regard to her claim for payment of provident fund and group insurance. The pension payment order was accordingly issued and gratuity was paid to her. However, her claim for release of the provident fund and group insurance still remains unsettled. No decision has yet been taken by the concerned authority with regard to her claim for payment of provident fund and group insurance. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached the Writ Court seeking direction upon the concerned authority for release of the provident fund and group insurance dues. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge with the above observation. We cannot approve the impugned order simply for this reason that here is the case where we find that no decision has yet been taken by the concerned authority with regard to the petitioner's claim for release of the provident fund and group insurance dues in her favour as the second nominee of the deceased teacher. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal by directing the District Inspector of Schools (P) to forward all the necessary papers relating to the petitioner's claim for release of the provident fund and group insurance dues to the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, positively within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order. The Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance, is directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for release of the provident fund as well as group insurance dues and pass a reasoned order in support of his conclusion, if necessary after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Such decision should be taken by the concerned authority positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the papers from the concerned District Inspector of Schools. The appeal is, thus, disposed of. Re: CAN. No. 5616 of 2014 In view of the disposal of the appeal, no further order need be passed on the application. Accordingly, the application is also disposed of. Tapash Mookherjee, J. I agree.