SACHIKANTA CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
LAWS(CAL)-1983-3-41
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 03,1983

Sachikanta Chakraborty Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Bankim Chandra Ray, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the petitioner against the fixation of his pension and gratuity without taking into consideration his pay last drawn by him as Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I, which is equivalent to the rank of the Inspector of Police in the State of West Bengal in the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The petitioner was appointed as a literate constable in the Calcutta Police on August 12, 1940. He was promoted thereafter to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in 1947 and he was further promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police in 1950. The petitioner was confirmed in the said post and he worked as Sub-Inspector up to the year 1961. Subsequently his service was lent in Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau as Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade II, with effect from 1962 and thereafter in 1968 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I, (equivalent to the rank of Inspector of Police in the State) and his pay in the said post was Rs. 700 and other allowances including special pay, deputation duty allowance house rent as well as City allowance at the rate of 8% of the basic pay and conveyance allowance of Rs. 20/-. The petitioner worked in the said post on and from 1968 to 1.2.75 when he retired from the said post on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has opted to remain out of the Family Pension Scheme, 1965 during the service period. It has been stated that the petitioner was allowed to draw pension and gratuity on the basis of the pay attached to the post of Sub-Inspector and his special pay and deputation' allowance on the basis of the pay of Inspector was added to the petitioner's salary for the purpose of petitioner's pension and gratuity. The petitioner made a representation before the Commissioner of Police for proper fixation of his pension and gratuity on the basis of the pay and allowances drawn by him as Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I, which was equivalent to Inspector of Police in the State where on the Commissioner of Police made a communication to the Accountant General, West Bengal under No. PN/749-75 requesting him to report on the admissibility of his revised pension and retiring gratuity on receipt which the necessary revised sanction will be accorded. To this a reply was given by the Accounts Officer on 26-7-79 stating that the petitioner could not get the benefit of his pension and gratuity being determined on the basis of the last pay drawn by him as an Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondents demanding justice. Failing to have any relief this instant application has been moved before this Court and the instant Rule was obtained. None appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of the Rule being duly served on them.
(3.) The only question that falls for consideration in this Rule is whether the petitioner is entitled to have his pension and gratuity being fixed on the basis of the emoluments drawn by him at the time of his retirement from the post of Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I, which is undoubtedly equivalent to the rank of Inspector of Police in the State. The petitioner undoubtedly was a confirmed Sub-Inspector of Police in the Calcutta Police before was deputed to work as Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade II, in the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I, which is equivalent to the rank of Inspector of Police in the State and in this post the petitioner worked during the period from 1968 to 31st January, 1975 i.e. for over six years. The petitioner's pension and gratuity were fixed on taking into consideration the pay drawn by him as Sub-Inspector of Police in the Calcutta Police and also his special pay and deputation allowance excluding the basic pay attached to the post of Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I, equivalent to Inspector of Police in, the State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to have his pension and gratuity fixed on the basis of the emoluments drawn by him last i. e. the emoluments equivalent to the post of Inspector of Police in the State. It appears that exactly a similar question was raised before this Court in Civil Rule No. 2002 (W) of 1971 and on 7-2-74 Anil Kumar Sen, J. held that under Rule 5 of the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pension) Rules, 1966 the amount of superannuation pension shall be the appropriate amount set out in Schedule I. The relevant entry i.e. the last entry in Schedule fixes the pension at 3/8th. of the average emoluments subject to a maximum limit of Rs. 8,100 per annum. It has also been held that emolument both substantive pay and officiating pay in accordance with Rule 9(21) of the Fundamental Rules. It has therefore been held that the fixation of pension and gratuity has to be made on taking into account the officiating pay and allowances drawn by the petitioner of that Rule even though his name did not appear in the list of Inspectors kept by the authorities concerned. In view of this judgment which I am bound to follow the claim of the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The petitioner as I have said already has acted in the post of Assistant Intelligence Officer, Grade I, which is equivalent to the rank of Inspector of Police in the State for a period over six years i. e. from 1968 to 31st January, 1975 and as such he is entitled to have the benefit of the last emolument drawn by him as well as the allowances and special pay, etc. in the matter of fixation of his gratuity and pension. It appears from the letter addressed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (respondent No. 2) to the Accountant General, West Bengal (respondent No. 3) by referring to the aforesaid case of Dhanesh Kumar Ganguly in Civil Rule No. 2002 (W) of 1971 seeking his opinion as to whether the pension and retiring gratuity should be revised. This, of course, was not properly considered. It was stated by the Accounts Officer that in the case of D.K. Ganguly of West Bengal Police officiating pay in the rank of Inspector was taken into account for calculation of average emolument as a special case without at all considering that there was a decision of this Court whereby the authorities concerned were directed to fix the gratuity and retiring benefits on the basis of the emoluments last drawn by the incumbent even in an officiating capacity.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.