Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 991 (CAL)

Mahadeb Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal

2024-05-09

RAI CHATTOPADHYAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rai Chattopadhyay, J. 1. The matter here relates to the loggerhead created between the petitioner and his previous employer, that is the head (HOI in short) of the school, namely Rabindra Smriti (S) Vidya Niketan, in which the petitioner has served as an assistant teacher from March 1, 1998, to January 31, 2019. That is regarding processing the pension file of the writ petitioner, as a result of which the writ petitioner is yet to receive pension, after retiring on January 31, 2019. Hence, this case. 2. The procedure for application, process and disposal of pension cases of the employees of the non-government aided and recognised educational institutions (including DA getting schools) through e-Pension Portal, has been vide the Memorandum No.62-SSE/17 dated April 17, 2017. This Memorandum has been a modification to the appropriate extent of the West Bengal Recognised non-Government Educational Institution Employees (DCRB) Scheme, 1981, introduced vide GO no. 136-EDN(B) dated May 15, 1985 and has also cancelled and/or modified the other related government orders. 3. The said Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, has provided for introduction of e-Portal and generation of list of the employees to superannuate, 12 months prior to the date of their respective superannuation. According to the said new scheme, the HOI, the Sub-Inspector of schools and the respective person scheduled to retire within the next 12 months, shall be taken simultaneously onto the same loop, to process the pension papers seamlessly through the e-Portal, instead of transacting the same in voluminous files. 4. The virtual Form would consist of five parts, that is, Parts -‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’. Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’ would be filled up by the employee, with the personal details and information relating to the commutation of pension, if any, respectively. Those shall be submitted to the end of the Head of the Institution (HOI)/Sub-Inspector of the Schools (P.E.), by the employee, in virtual form. Printout of the Part-‘A’, in triplicate, with photograph, et cetera, as stipulated, would be submitted by him before the same authority, in physical form. Similar is with regard to the Part-‘B’ too. 5. Pertinent here is to note certain time limits as provided therein. Within the period from 12th month to 11th month from the date of superannuation, the employee has to receive the user-id and password. Similar is with regard to the Part-‘B’ too. 5. Pertinent here is to note certain time limits as provided therein. Within the period from 12th month to 11th month from the date of superannuation, the employee has to receive the user-id and password. PARA 3.3 of the said notification has provided that the employee shall complete submission of Part-‘A’ and Part-‘B’, both in virtual as well as physical form, within a date not later than ten months before his date of superannuation. 6. PARA 4 is the provision for processing of application for pension, submitted by the superannuating employee at the end of HOI/Sub-Inspector of Schools and the same is heavily relied on by the petitioner in this case. Such processing by the HOI has to be in stages, as described in PARAs 4.1 to 4.5 of the Memorandum. First is receipt and acknowledgment thereof. The application forms Part-‘A’ and Part-‘B’ along with other supporting papers, when submitted by the employee at the end of HOI, receipt of the same shall be acknowledged immediately and a system generated acknowledgement receipt shall be handed over to the employee. 7. Next is verification by the HOI. Correctness of the information declared by the employee in Part-‘A’ shall be verified along with the fact that if information declared in Part-‘A’ is complete in all respect and all the required attachments have been submitted. Part-‘B’ shall also be verified. 8. Next stage is regarding filling up the corresponding Parts by the HOI. Upon satisfaction, and when no defect can be found in the respective Parts, as submitted by the employee, the HOI shall proceed to fill up the comprehensive form Part-‘C’, Part-‘D’ and Part-‘E’, of the application. Thereafter, necessary steps shall be taken to complete the Service Book in all aspect. The next stage is of submission of the forms. On completion of the process of filling up of Parts-‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, the HOI shall submit the application, online, using Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) to the Pension Sanctioning Authority. The duty of the HOI does not conclude here. The next stage is of submission of Service Book in physical form along with the forms and documents. On completion of the process of filling up of Parts-‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, the HOI shall submit the application, online, using Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) to the Pension Sanctioning Authority. The duty of the HOI does not conclude here. The next stage is of submission of Service Book in physical form along with the forms and documents. After submission of the forms online, the HOI will take printout of Parts-‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ and Annexure-I in duplicate, sign the same and attach a copy of the signed Parts-‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ and Annexure -I with documents submitted by the applicant. Duly completed Service Book and all required papers in support of entries made in the various Parts of pension application, in e-Pension Portal, the same shall be forwarded thereafter, along with the printout of forms and documents submitted by the applicant, to the Pension Sanctioning Authority. 9. Therefore, it can be seen that the virtual process of submission of application form consists of two parts that is, submission of form in Parts-‘A’ and ‘B’, by the retiring employee himself. And thereafter, after scrutiny and satisfaction about the correctness of those submitted by the employee, for the submission of form in Parts – ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, by the HOI. On both the occasions, two different modes of submission have to be undertaken, that is, submission online through the e-portal and also manual submission in physical form. 10. What if during verification, the HOI finds defect in Part-‘A’ or ‘B’ or any of the documents, as submitted by the concerned employee? The process to be undertaken in that case is enumerated in PARA 4.3 of the said Memorandum. It has provided that in case the HOI finds any defect, either in application form Parts – ‘A’ or ‘B’ or in any document furnished by the employee, he shall return the applications along with Annexure I, online, using DSC, to the applicant through system, with comments noted in the earmarked space of Annexure I, with request to the employee to resubmit the application within 15 days from the date of objection. After resubmission, the same shall be processed pursuant the provisions as stipulated. After resubmission, the same shall be processed pursuant the provisions as stipulated. Provision in PARA 4.5 is also worth noting, which has provided that the HOI shall complete the whole process of submission of soft copy as well as hard copy, not later than seven and half months before the date of superannuation of the employee concerned. 11. Having discussed as above, let us now consider as to the factual background of this case. The writ petitioner had retired from service on January 31, 2019. Before that, a letter dated January 17, 2019 was issued to him by the HOI informing him that the writ petitioner has not submitted application forms Part – ‘A’ and/or ‘B’, either in the virtual mode in e-Pension portal or in physical form, a hardcopy thereof. He was further informed that unless the said forms Parts – ‘A’ and ‘B’ are submitted as per the provision of Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, it would not be possible for the HOI to proceed with the pension file of the writ petitioner by filling up Parts – ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’. 12. Another letter was served by the HOI to the writ petitioner, on the date of his superannuation, i.e., January 31, 2019. It has further been informed that the writ petitioner was, till then, yet to submit duly filled up forms Part – ‘A’ and Part – ‘B’ in the e-Pension portal as well as a hardcopy thereof. The HOI, by dint of the said letter dated January 31, 2019 has informed further that since the anomaly of leave enjoyed by the writ petitioner was not settled in terms of the Leave Rules, the school authority would follow the Government Rules in that regard. 13. The writ petitioner has stated that duly filled-up forms Part – ‘A’ and Part – ‘B’ have already been submitted by him in the e-Pension portal. He has annexed the copy thereof in the writ petition. 14. The writ petitioner has mentioned about an order of this Court dated June 22, 2022 passed in writ petition No. WPA 6852 of 2022, which was filed by him. With respect to the writ petitioner’s grievance for his pension file not having being processed, the Court directed as follows: “The petitioner is required to respond on the same through e-portal. The writ petitioner has mentioned about an order of this Court dated June 22, 2022 passed in writ petition No. WPA 6852 of 2022, which was filed by him. With respect to the writ petitioner’s grievance for his pension file not having being processed, the Court directed as follows: “The petitioner is required to respond on the same through e-portal. The petitioner may do so in accordance with law and the respondents shall correspond thereafter and take a decision on the question of release of pension to the petitioner. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed by the parties within a period of four weeks from date.” 15. Writ petitioner’s grievance is that inspite of such a direction being made by the Court, and the petitioner having complied with the same by online submission, the respondents, particularly the respondent school/HOI thereof/respondent No. 9, has committed gross inaction in processing his pension application and thereby arbitrarily and illegally withheld payment of such benefit to the writ petitioner. 16. Mr. Hati, who represents the writ petitioner, expresses grief and agony of his client. He says that pension has been recognized to be a constitutional right of a person, from which his client has been deprived due to deliberate and motivated inaction of the respondents, particularly the HOI/respondent No. 9, which is arbitrary and has resulted into illegality. Mr. Hati says that form Parts – ‘A’ and ‘B’ have been duly submitted by his client through the e-Pension portal. He points out that according to the Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, the HOI/respondent No. 9 shall have the only option to process the same by filling up the corresponding forms Part – ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, unless any defect is found therein. Allegedly, the respondent No. 9, HOI has kept uncanny silence in processing petitioner’s application further in terms of the said Memorandum, thereby prejudicing vital rights of the writ petitioner by illegally withholding the pension of the writ petitioner. 17. The respondent No. 9, HOI is represented by Mr. Basu. Mr. Basu does not dispute regarding filing of forms Part – ‘A’ and ‘B’ by the writ petitioner in the e-Pension portal. However, he says that the HOI could not record his concurrence to the information submitted therein, the same being furnished with distorted and defective information. 17. The respondent No. 9, HOI is represented by Mr. Basu. Mr. Basu does not dispute regarding filing of forms Part – ‘A’ and ‘B’ by the writ petitioner in the e-Pension portal. However, he says that the HOI could not record his concurrence to the information submitted therein, the same being furnished with distorted and defective information. Upon verification, the HOI has found lacuna, for which further processing of the pension files of the writ petitioner could not be done on his end. He refers to the copy of the Part of the e-Pension portal as relied on by the writ petitioner and stated to have been filled up and submitted by him. The following column is referred to :- “Whether any Court Case regarding pay and services is pending/disposed off with Hon’bleHigh Court or any other Authority:” “No” 18. According to Mr. Basu, his client has found lacuna in the information so declared by the writ petitioner as mentioned above. He says that on the particular date of declaration as above by the writ petitioner, i.e., January 31, 2019 (that is the date of his retirement), there has been a writ petition filed by the present petitioner, pending for adjudication, before this High Court. The writ petition, he says, was with regard to his suspension, though the same has become infructuous due to the suspension being withheld subsequently, pursuant to an order of this Court. However, according to Mr. Basu, firstly, the writ petitioner has not declared correctly in the e-Pension portal as against the column regarding pendency of any Court case. Secondly, the respondent No. 9/HOI has also not been able to give a clean chit to the writ petitioner in the corresponding Parts – ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ in view of the fact as above but had to put in, his “Special Comment” that, pursuant to the Court’s interim order, the writ petitioner had joined in duty but the final order in the case is still awaited. 19. Mr. Basu, however, supports the petitioner’s case unequivocally to state that pension is his right and he cannot be deprived of the same. Mr. 19. Mr. Basu, however, supports the petitioner’s case unequivocally to state that pension is his right and he cannot be deprived of the same. Mr. Basu says, rather proposes, that let the writ petitioner re-submit Parts – ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the application forms with correct and sufficient information, particularly, that with regard to the pending writ petition as mentioned above, so that the respondent No. 9/HOI, can immediately thereafter process the same duly. He counsels to suggest that the present case may not be looked at as an adversarial litigation and informs about his client’s intentions and interests to eradicate any stumbling block, in the way of the writ petitioner, to receive pension. He seeks that an appropriate order be passed. 20. Mr. Vaisya is representing the State. He submits that as per the settled position of law, the writ petitioner is entitled to receive the pension after his retirement and there would not be any objection by the State respondent in this regard. Mr. Vaisya has submitted that the moment the pension application forms in virtual as well as physical form, be submitted in its office, in terms of Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, the said respondent, within no time, shall process the same and ensure that the pension be made available to the writ petitioner. 21. Mr. Hati, in reply, has however raised strong objections as to the submissions made by Mr. Basu while representing the respondent No. 9/HOI. Mr. Hati speaks in protest of the submission made on behalf of the HOI that, at the time of verification of Parts – ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the pension form submitted by the writ petitioner, the HOI detected lacuna, for which the duly filled up pension application form could not be processed by the HOI. He points out to two things. Firstly, to the relevant provision of Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, i.e., PARA 4.3. He says that in case Part – ‘A’ and Part – ‘B’ and or documents furnished therewith by the petitioner, were found defective, it was incumbent for the HOI to return the same along with Annexure-I to the applicant through the e-Portal system, that too with necessary comments and a with a request to the writ petitioner to re-submit the same, within 15 days from the date of objection. Mr. Hati points out that the same has never been done by the HOI. Mr. Hati points out that the same has never been done by the HOI. 22. Secondly, Mr. Hati further indicates that in the affidavit-in-opposition, the HOI has mentioned about filling up of Parts – ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ by him and while filling up the same, regarding making “Special Comment” as regards pendency of a writ petition before this Court being No. WPO 2444 of 2022. Mr. Hati says that pursuant to the Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, the HOI would fill up the corresponding Parts – ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, only when it would find the earlier Parts, i.e., Parts – ‘A’ and ‘B’, to have been duly filled up by the applicant. He says that the moment HOI fills up the Parts – ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, it would automatically imply that on verification, the HOI has found Parts – ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the application form to be appropriately submitted and eligible to be processed on the basis of the information declared therein. In such view of the fact, Mr. Hati submits that the earlier contention of the HOI/respondent No. 9, that there has been certain lacuna or flaw with respect to Parts – ‘A’ and ‘B’ filed by the writ petitioner, does not stand. Therefore, Mr. Hati has stuck to his argument that the writ petitioner has been subjected to gross injustice, unreasonableness, victimisation, arbitrariness and illegality due to gross inaction of the respondents in processing his pension file. He seeks appropriate relief for his client. 23. Procedure, as regards submission of pension application forms, in terms of the Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, has been discussed above, in details. On consideration of the records and submissions of the respective parties, it transpires that the petitioner’s application form, duly filled up, including all Parts, that is Parts ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, has been transmitted to the Pension Sanctioning Authority, as the respondent No.9/HOI, has mentioned in his affidavit, as to the “Special Comment” made by him in the particular segment, of the specified form. Therefore, submission on its behalf regarding non-receipt of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Parts of the pension file of the writ petitioner, is not tenable. Issue now rests on the premise that whether the HOI has found any defect in the Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’, of the form, as was submitted by the writ petitioner. Therefore, submission on its behalf regarding non-receipt of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ Parts of the pension file of the writ petitioner, is not tenable. Issue now rests on the premise that whether the HOI has found any defect in the Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’, of the form, as was submitted by the writ petitioner. And if so, what steps have been taken by him, if at all. 24. It is not disputed that in case of any defect being identified in the filled up Parts ‘A’ or ‘B’, or with the documents submitted by the applicant, the HOI would inform the same to the applicant, that too, immediately, to enable the applicant to remove such defect and resubmit it within a specified period of time, that is, 15 days from the date of objection. This is the only stipulated action to be taken by the HOI, in terms of said Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, in case any defect is found as regards the Parts ‘A’ and/or ‘B’ or any document filed by the applicant. It is understood that the respondent/HOI had found defect as regards the declaration made by the writ petitioner regarding pending case, if any. The ordinary course of action, in that case, would have been in terms of PARA 4.3 of the said Memorandum, to inform the applicant/writ petitioner about the defect, return the application and ask him to cure the same and to resubmit a corrected form within 15 days time, from the date of such objection. It is noted that such a step has been taken by the said respondent/HOI, but not immediately after detection of the so called defect. Only vide letter dated April 27, 2019, sent in reply to the query made on behalf of the petitioner, the HOI had informed about the so called defect, to have been found. By that time, however, the said respondent has filled up the corresponding Parts of the pension application form, that are Parts ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, with the “Special Comment” on April 18, 2019, and the form comprising of all Parts, was submitted before the Pension Sanctioning Authority. 25. The Court finds force in the submission made by Mr. By that time, however, the said respondent has filled up the corresponding Parts of the pension application form, that are Parts ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, with the “Special Comment” on April 18, 2019, and the form comprising of all Parts, was submitted before the Pension Sanctioning Authority. 25. The Court finds force in the submission made by Mr. Hati, that filling of Parts ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’, by the respondent/HOI, would imply the other Parts submitted by the applicant, that is, Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’ and the documents, to be in form, insofar as, that is the stipulation made in the Memorandum dated April 17, 2017. There is no scope for the HOI, under the said Memorandum to process further the pension application form, if any defect is found in the same as regards the Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’ and the documents, submitted by the applicant. 26. It is noticed further that the respondent/HOI has not been able to cite any explanation or reason as to why the alleged defects could not be notified to the writ petitioner immediately for resubmission of form by him within the stipulated time, that is, 15 days. Though it is not so that, in case the said respondent could have explained the delay, the same might have been condoned. That is because of the reason that the Memorandum has not provided for any antidote with respect to any delay committed in this regard. The Court finds that the same must have been the reason for the said respondent to process further with the pension file of the writ petitioner, by filling up the Parts scheduled to be filled up by the HOI, in spite of identifying the so called alleged defect of information, as it was submitted by the writ petitioner. The Court has no hesitation to hold that by doing so the concerned respondent/HOI has accepted Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’, as submitted by the writ petitioner to be in form and free from any defect. 27. The Court has no hesitation to hold that by doing so the concerned respondent/HOI has accepted Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’, as submitted by the writ petitioner to be in form and free from any defect. 27. As early as in the year 1971, a five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court was considering in the case of Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar [reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 ] the questions whether pension granted to a public servant was property as per Article 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution of India, whether grant of pension was a matter of discretion with the government and whether executive order denying pension was protected by Article 19(5) of the Constitution, amongst other related issues. The Court held that the right to get pension is “property” and fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. Let the relevant portion thereof be quoted, as herein below: “33. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order, dated June 12, 1968, denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of writ of mandamus being issued to the State to property consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.” Since long, the law of the land has recognised ‘pension’ to be property of the recipient, under the Constitution of India. 28. Similar view has been expressed by the same Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 , where it has been held that :- “15. 28. Similar view has been expressed by the same Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 , where it has been held that :- “15. In State of W.B. v. Haresh C. Banerjee [ (2006) 7 SCC 651 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1719] this Court recognised that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20-6-1979, the right to property no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a constitutional right, as provided in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court.” 29. Further, in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the grant of pensionery benefits is not a bounty, but a right of the employee, and as such, cannot be denied without proper justification. 30. It is worth mentioning that the property right, though not a fundamental right under the Constitution any further, but remains to be a vital constitutional right of a person. Therefore, so is the right to receive the pension. The proposition as above is still holding the field and is entirely applicable in case of the writ petitioner, since his right, under the governing Rules to receive pension, is not denied by the respondents, in this case. Instead, learned lawyers representing the respective respondents have expressed benevolent intention of their clients respectively, to provide pension to the writ petitioner at the earliest. 31. As a matter of fact, grant of pension does not depend upon any order being passed to that effect by the authorities. Instead, learned lawyers representing the respective respondents have expressed benevolent intention of their clients respectively, to provide pension to the writ petitioner at the earliest. 31. As a matter of fact, grant of pension does not depend upon any order being passed to that effect by the authorities. It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount, having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to the recipient, not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules/Statute. The relevant Rules, in this case clearly recognise the right of persons like the petitioner, to receive pension on superannuation. This would also find support from the decision of the five Judges Bench, as mentioned above, in the case of Deokinandan Prasad (supra). 32. Therefore, the right of the writ petitioner to receive pension, on his superannuation, as is flowing to him pursuant to the prevalent Rules, is not to be curtailed or hindered, by any manner or on whatsoever pretext. 33. Provisions under the Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, are the procedural Rules to implement the substantive statutory right of pension and created to facilitate expeditious and seamless transaction of voluminous pension papers. Defect or shortcoming as to the same, if any, would be a lacuna in the procedure. It may render the procedure to be irregular but not illegal. Failure to comply with the procedure, by providing an information is an irregularity and does not render the proceeding a nullity and cannot adversely affect the substantial right of the concerned person, to receive pension. Of course, fraud or false representation, as the case may be, would vitiate even a lawful entitlement. But it is a settled law that the alleged commission of any fraud has to be specifically pleaded. It is not a case of commission of any fraud, alleged by the concerned respondents against the writ petitioner at the time of indentifying a defect in the Parts of the virtual form, filled up by the petitioner. It is also not a case of the respondent/HOI that on the basis of the “Special Comment” narrated by him, as mentioned above, amount of pension of the writ petitioner is going to be affected in any way. It is also not a case of the respondent/HOI that on the basis of the “Special Comment” narrated by him, as mentioned above, amount of pension of the writ petitioner is going to be affected in any way. Therefore, in addition to the finding of this Court that application form Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’, as submitted by the writ petitioner, has been accepted by the respondent No. 9/HOI, irrespective of any defect if at all, the Court is desirous also to record its finding that mandatory compliance of this part of the procedural rule, as enunciated under the said Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, may be ignored by the respective respondent authorities while processing the pension file of the writ petitioner, since the same has not been mentioned to bear any relevance to the fixation of pension and the amount thereof in any manner whatsoever nor is there any pleading available as to the fraudulent intention of the petitioner, in not declaring about any pending Court case. This Court takes opportunity to mention here a portion of judgment of Justice Krishna Iyre in Sushil Kumar Sen vs. State of Bihar reported in (1975) 1 SCC 774 , that:- “Procedure should be handmaid not the mistress.”. Let the relevant portion be quoted. “6. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in Judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.******” Therefore, as per the law settled, there would not be any two opinions, that, processual law may not overpower the substantive rights and substantial justice. 34. The observance of the Rules of procedure is fundamental to the course of litigation for the reason that they provide the necessary framework for achievement of statutory purpose. At the sametime it could also be stated that too rigid an adherence to the rules in certain circumstances may inappropriately and unjustly deprive a party of his rights. 34. The observance of the Rules of procedure is fundamental to the course of litigation for the reason that they provide the necessary framework for achievement of statutory purpose. At the sametime it could also be stated that too rigid an adherence to the rules in certain circumstances may inappropriately and unjustly deprive a party of his rights. This Court may beneficially quote from the words of Bowen LJ in the case of Copper vs. Smith, reported in (1884) 26 Ch D 700, that is, “a well established principle that the object of the courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights.” Also that, “I know of no kind of error or mistake which, if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the court ought not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party.” 35. The writ petitioner has retired on January 31, 2019, and he is yet to receive pension, which is his statutory as well as constitutional right, irrespective of any order having been passed to that effect by the respondent authority. The respondents are implementing authorities, of such right of the superannuated employee and under no pretext can those authorities withheld the pension of the writ petitioner, unless there is any element of fraud alleged or allegations are made of suppression of material fact which may have a bearing to the amount of pension payable to the writ petitioner. 36. On the premise as above, the Court finds it proper that the Pension Sanctioning Authority should release pension to the writ petitioner, with immediate effect on the basis of the pension application form Parts ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ submitted by the writ petitioner and the respondent No.9/HOI respectively. 37. Pertinent is to note that much earlier, that is, on September 21, 2023, this Court directed the HOI as well as the District Inspector of Schools (DIS), Hooghly, to make endeavor to end the impasse created in case of grant of petitioner’s pension. It is, however, found that not only those respondents are unable to come up before the Court since thereafter with any solution of the problem but also those are unable to even indicate that any such endeavor has ever been made on their behalf. It is, however, found that not only those respondents are unable to come up before the Court since thereafter with any solution of the problem but also those are unable to even indicate that any such endeavor has ever been made on their behalf. The entire ball game is shifted by the respondents to the writ petitioner on the pretext that there has been a defect of information by the petitioner as disclosed in form Part ‘A’. As discussed earlier, such defect, if any, at all has been ignored by the respondent HOI and the petitioner’s application was forwarded with “Special Comment”. It is also noted that the writ petitioner has been informed about such defect if any after a considerable period of time. Thus the respondent HOI, according to his sweet will, has committed flagrant disobedience of the stipulations made in the Memorandum dated April 17, 2017, in processing the application form of the writ petitioner. Now, at such a belated stage the respondent HOI being attuned with the Pension Sanctioning Authority and/or District Inspector of Schools (DIS) Hooghly, has tried to shift the entire burden upon the writ petitioner that his part of the application form was defective, whereas it is already on record that the said application form has been processed by him. It has been discussed above that against the writ petitioner any allegation of fraud misrepresentation has not been made, excepting only a ‘defect’ having been committed. All the respondents as mentioned above are however convinced that pension cannot be released in favour of the writ petitioner in view of the said defect, though they themselves have ignored the same and processed the application form of the petitioner in terms of the procedural rules as envisaged in the Memorandum dated April 17, 2017. On the discussion as made above, this Court is of the opinion that the law would not prevent allowing the respondent authorities to ignore petitioner’s alleged mistaken disclosure made in Part ‘A’. This is more so for the reason that neither any allegation against the petitioner is made of fraud or misrepresentation by him while declaring as above nor that the same, if ignored, would unsettled or vary the amount of pension receivable by the writ petitioner. This is more so for the reason that neither any allegation against the petitioner is made of fraud or misrepresentation by him while declaring as above nor that the same, if ignored, would unsettled or vary the amount of pension receivable by the writ petitioner. Since the respondents are found to have ignored the Court’s suggestions to amicably bring in any solution of the problem, now they have to comply with the mandamus issued by the Court in this case. The Court does not want to comment about if there is any evil existing like ego satisfaction of the authorities by compelling the petitioner to suffer, but gross inaction on the respondent’s part bearing grave consequences, would be ex facie evident, even if not deliberated much about. 38. The writ petition no. WPA 22118 of 2023 is thus allowed. 39. The writ petition no. WPA 22118 of 2023 is disposed of with the following direction:- (i) The respondent authorities, particularly the Pension Sanctioning Authority shall further process the pension application form filed by the writ petitioner comprised with Parts ‘A’ and ‘B’ and the corresponding Parts ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ as submitted by the respondent/HOI and also the documents submitted with the same; (ii) The Pension Payment Order shall be issued in favour of the writ petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order; (iii) The pension shall be released to the writ petitioner within the period of one month from the date issuance of Pension Payment Order to the writ petitioner; (iv) The entire arrear pension as stands outstanding to the writ petitioner with effect from the date of his retirement, shall be released to him within seven days from the date of issuance of Pension Payment Order; (v) In the facts and circumstances of the case the Court finds it proper to direct the concerned respondent/Pension Payment Authority to release interest amount upon the unpaid pension amount, starting from the date of retirement of the writ petitioner, that is, from January 31, 2019, till the date of actual payment of the arrear amounts of pension, @ 18% simple interest, per annum. 40. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.