State Must Ensure Employee's Claiming Retiral Benefits Don't Succumb To 'Procedural Rigmarole': Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has recently held that state employees should not be made to suffer due to procedure when they attempt to claim their retiral benefits.

A division bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Sen stated:

Fairness and reasonableness are paramount issues for administrative action. As a model employer, the State must conduct itself with high probity and candour and ensure that its employees do not succumb to the procedural rigmarole particularly when the claim pertains to retirement benefits. Biswa had contested his claim since the year 2003 and had remained trapped in a purgatorial legal rigmarole, moving back and forth between the High Court and Tribunal.

According to the facts of the case, the petitioner, namely, Biswa Bhusan Nandi joined the Indian Air Force and rendered service for about 15 years. Thereafter, he applied for the post of Data Entry Operator as an Ex-Serviceman and was successful in the written test and also cleared the interview, however, he was not granted an appointment.

Aggrieved by this, he filed an original application which was dismissed in 2005. Challenging the same, Biswa preferred a writ petition, which was disposed of by an order dated 20th June, 2005 setting aside the order impugned and directing the respondents to accommodate Biswa in the post of Data Entry Operator, Gr. B, (DEO) or in a suitable alternative post.

After more litigation, the competent authority finally offered an appointment to Biswa in 2009. However, he was not granted seniority as per his batch of selection in 1994 or his back wages. He was also not included in the Old Pension Scheme applicable to employees appointed prior to the year 2004.

As the representations for such benefits were not considered, Biswa preferred an application for an appropriate order, but the same was dismissed on 11th September, 2013 with liberty to apply before the Tribunal.

Challenging the inaction towards implementation and denial of fixation benefits, Biswa preferred the present writ petitions.

Counsel on behalf of Biswa submitted that the respondents in the first writ have violated the directions of the Court for which Biswa had to approach this Court on repeated occasions.

In the interim it was stated that Biswa attained his age of superannuation on 31st March, 2018 and till date, his retirement benefits had been withheld.

She argued that it would be explicit from the memo dated 5th June, 2009 and 14th October, 2010 that Biswa had been granted seniority at the bottom of the batch of the year 1995 and that as such he cannot be denied the benefit of notional fixation of pay on and the year of 1995 and the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme which was in force at the said time.

She submitted that with the sole intent to frustrate Biswa's claim and to heckle and harass him, the Union of India and its functionaries also preferred the second WP and simply kept it pending. Such conduct is most unbecoming of the model employer.

Counsel for the respondents stated that Biswa was not qualified for the post and he is not even entitled to notional benefits on and from the year 1995 since he was actually appointed by memo dated 27th January, 2009. Such appointment was duly accepted by Biswa without raising any objection whatsoever and as such at this juncture he cannot turn back and claim benefits of appointment from the year 1995.

He further argued that the Tribunal erred in law directing the authorities to grant the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme in favour of Biswa since the said scheme expired much prior to the issuance of the letter of appointment in the year 2009 and the New Pension Scheme came into effect from 1st January, 2004.

Upon hearing the counsel, the court noted that fairness and reasonableness are paramount issues for administrative action.

It was held that as a model employer, the State must ensure that employees don't face unnecessary challenges when claiming retirement benefits.

It was thus held that there was no error in the order of the tribunal and hence the writ petition was allowed.

Case: Biswa Bhusan Nandi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WP.CT 88 of 2017

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 227

Click here to read order