Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 798 (CAL)

Md. Anesur Rahman v. State of West Bengal

2016-10-04

SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Batna J.M.O. Senior Madrasah, Batna, District Malda. He was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 18th November, 1989 and superannuated on and from 31st January, 2016. Before his superannuation the school authority made a communication to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Malda for taking steps for sanction of pension in favour of the petitioner. The said letter has been annexed to this writ petition as Annexure P-4. With the said letter the school authority forwarded all the required documents but it has been alleged by the petitioner that no steps have been taken for grant of pension. The claim for grant of pension is pending before the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Malda. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Malda will pass a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 2. The petitioner further claims that he is entitled to some arrear incremental benefits which has not been paid by the concerned authority. However, the petitioner has not made any application. The petitioner will be at liberty to make an application to that effect to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Malda and in the event such application is made the said authority shall also consider the same together with his claim for grant of pension and other retiral benefits. The petitioner superannuated from his service on 31st January, 2016 and on the date of his retirement his basic pay was Rs.25,720/- as per ROPA 2009. Since the petitioner has been superannuated on 31st January, 2016 and no steps have been taken by the Pension Sanctioning Authority, this Court directs the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Malda to take a decision with regard to the grant of pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. He will also grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. The District Inspector of School (S.E.), Malda shall consider the claim of the petitioner taking into consideration of the existing rules prevailing on the subject. 3. Since no affidavit has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition will be deemed not to have been admitted. 4. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.