JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the release of pensionary benefits, gratuity and arrears pension along with interest at 18% per annum to the writ petitioner who voluntarily retired from service. Perhaps I should let the carefully dispassionate yet because of that, all the more poignant cry for justice she made to the statutory authorities, speak for itself. 2. By a letter dated May 2, 2015 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Siliguri, Darjeeling and sent through proper channel being the Headmaster, Sriguru Vidyamandir (Higher Secondary), Champsari, Darjeeling, the writ petitioner prayed as follows: - "Most respectfully I beg to inform you that I am working as an Asstt. Teacher (English) in Sriguru Vidyamandir since 14-11-1994 with utmost satisfaction of the authority. I also like to inform you that I got married with Sri Pradip Kumar Bargi of Asansol, Burdwan. In this context I would like to inform you that my husband is suffering from severe Osteoarthritis at both legs and is unable to work smoothly without the assistance of second person. Since there is no second member available other than me in our family I got to stay alongwith my ailing husband to assist him in his daily life. As such my working place (Siliguri) being far off from my husband's working place which is at present Asansol, Burdwan, it is not possible for me to continue my job in Siliguri further. Under this circumstances I fervently request you to consider the prayer for my voluntary retirement at your earliest. I may please be intimated the action taken by your in this regard." 3. So it is clear that the writ petitioner was seeking voluntary retirement since her gender and role as a wife had been used to steam roll her own ambitions into nothing, so that she could be of use to her all but handicapped husband, whose work at Asansol was held to be more important than the writ petitioner's as a teacher, the preceptor of a new generation, merely because he was a man and she was his wife. 4. It is nobody's case that the prayer for voluntary retirement was refused. 4. It is nobody's case that the prayer for voluntary retirement was refused. On the contrary, the Headmaster of the said school, who is the respondent no.5, by the release order dated July 29, 2015 recorded that by a resolution taken at the meeting of the authority/managing committee of the said school on May 15, 2015 resolved to accept the resignation of the writ petitioner with effect from the afternoon of May 2, 2015. It also recorded that the authority had also resolved to arrange for early payment of the usual dues and terminal benefits as applicable according to prevailing rules and regulations. No allegation was raised against the petitioner on any count. On the contrary, it was recorded that the petitioner was released permanently from the post she was holding on consideration of her prayer for voluntary retirement on personal ground, and with further regard to "contribution towards building ideal moral values among the students as well as her role throughout the journey of the last 20 years in the growing up activities of the School." 5. Unfortunately, after this letter dated July 29, 2015 and release of the petitioner who did not go to school after this, nothing was paid to her nor were her papers for pension and other benefits to which she was entitled, processed by the statutory authorities. No response was made to the numerous representations made by her to the statutory authorities including the District Inspector of Schools (SE) Silguri, Darjeeling, being the respondent no. 3, the Managing Committee of the school (the respondent no. 4) and even the Director of School Education (the respondent no. 2) copies of which have been annexed to the writ petition from pages 28 to 32, both inclusive. Till June 6, 2017 and thereafter, the statutory authorities adopted the Stanislavsky principles of "method acting" and pretended to be a stone. Hence the writ petition, complaining of culpable inaction by the respondent authorities in the matter of the fruits of labour of the writ petitioner, which amounted to livelihood, part of her right to life. 6. The writ petition was moved on service, and when none appeared for either party on the first day the matter was called, on September 19, 2018, I posted it for hearing, in the monthly list of November, 2018. 6. The writ petition was moved on service, and when none appeared for either party on the first day the matter was called, on September 19, 2018, I posted it for hearing, in the monthly list of November, 2018. On such occasion, the State of West Bengal and its officers including the respondents no.2 and 3 were represented. They did not dispute any of the statements contained in the writ petition on facts but submitted that on the face of the order passed by a coordinate bench in WP No. 11060 (W) of 2013 being a lis inter partes, which was decided on November 22, 2013, the writ petitioner was not entitled to have her service counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits from the date of her appointment to the date she served the notice of voluntary retirement, and that she did not have qualifying service on the face of the said documents. The State Respondents submitted that the coordinate bench had granted the writ petitioner ten days to join in the post of Assistant Teacher at the said school on November 22, 2013 but admittedly as appears from paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner rejoined her duties on April 29, 2015, on the ground of continuing ill health and this was long beyond the time granted by the coordinate bench. The State Respondents rely upon paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition and the documents annexed to it, in support of these statements. Therefore, I have heard the writ petition on the limited question of whether the point taken by the respondents as to lack of qualifying service and the reasons they have advanced for it, are sufficient and lawful, without calling for affidavits in the matter. 7. Four paragraphs of the said judgment are relevant for our purposes. I have taken the liberty to set them out below, for convenience. "Ms. Ghoshal, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner was very sick and she was suffering from acute asthma. After recovery from her illness, she went to the school for joining her duty with fitness certificate issued by the doctor. The school authority did not allow her to join duty. Learned counsel submits that the ailment of the petitioner was very serious. The Managing Committee did not consider her case properly. Mr. After recovery from her illness, she went to the school for joining her duty with fitness certificate issued by the doctor. The school authority did not allow her to join duty. Learned counsel submits that the ailment of the petitioner was very serious. The Managing Committee did not consider her case properly. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he has nothing to say. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the suffering of the writ petitioner, the concerned school is directed to allow the writ petitioner to join her duties. However, she will not be paid any salary for the period of her absence. The continuity of her service will be maintained for calculation of her retiral benefits. The school authorities is directed to allow the writ petitioner to join her duty by ten days from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is thus allowed." 8. On the face of the said order, the coordinate bench, in the lis inter partes had never granted the petitioner only ten days from the date of the order, to join her duties. The order plainly shows that the school authorities were directed to "allow the writ petitioner to join her duty by ten days from the date of communication of this order." (emphasis supplied by me). 9. The letter of joining being the joining report is dated April 29, 2015 (at page 25 of the writ petition) which the school authorities allowed and there a reference has been made by the writ petitioner that she had made a prayer in terms of the order of the coordinate bench to the District Inspector of Schools on March 12, 2015. The State respondents submit that if the writ petitioner had joined duties within ten days from March 12, 2015, she would have been perfectly within the period of time granted by the coordinate bench on November 22, 2013 and thus could have claimed lawfully that the 'continuity of her service will be maintained for calculation of her retiral benefits.' Yet since she sought to join on April 29, 2015 when she had communicated the order to the District Inspector of Schools on March 12, 2015, she was hopelessly beyond the time. 10. 10. The writ petitioner did not have to seek voluntary retirement except for the social expectation that she would subordinate her interests to that of her husband even though she was doing an important work, the formation of the ideals and guidance of young people who are our future and even though she was praised by her superiors and the school itself for the dedication with which she had done so, till her prayer for voluntary retirement. The stand taken by the State Respondents does violence to the order of the coordinate bench dated November 22, 2013 and its plain language. The time of ten days was to be counted as"ten days from the date of communication of the order", no doubt, but the direction to allow the writ petitioner to join was on the school authority and thus it is to be construed that the communication was to be made by the writ petitioner to the school authorities and the time of ten days would run from the date of such communication made to the school authorities. The coordinate bench in its wisdom had left the period to be counted from the date that the writ petitioner communicated the order to the "school authorities" in my reading of the order. The time was not to be counted from the date of communication to the District Inspector of Schools. If the question had been of the knowledge of the District Inspector of Schools, then, since he was represented by Mr. Joytosh Majumder, learned advocate for the State, the question would not have arisen for communication. None has preferred an appeal from the order dated November 22, 2013, which has achieved finality. 11. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the submissions made on behalf of the State Respondents and overrule them. Accordingly, there will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition and a further observation that for the purpose of calculation of the retirement benefits, the writ petitioner would be deemed to have been continuously in service including for the purposes of qualifying service from the date of her appointment dated October 21, 1994 approved with effect from November 14, 1994 by the order dated June 12, 1996, till the date that she put the authorities on notice of her desire to take voluntary retirement and her actual date of release. The only thing I do not grant to her is interest at the rate of 18% per annum I believe that it would be sufficient and adequate if the retirement benefits carry simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from July 29, 2015 till the date of actual payment of all the retirement benefits to the writ petitioner. The school authorities being the respondents no.4 and 5 shall cooperate and complete all the paper work and send the same to the respondent no. 3 within three weeks from the date of communication of this order and the respondent no. 3 shall release the retirement benefits of the petitioner including gratuity to the writ petitioner within a further period of two weeks thereafter. The time periods delimited by me shall be peremptory. 12. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. The parties shall bear their own costs.