- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows : None appears on behalf of the respondents at the time of second call of this matter. No accommodation is prayed for.
(2.) This writ application is directed against an order dated December 18/19, 2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for granting benefits under the West Bengal Recognized Non- Government Educational Institution Employees' (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) arising out of the services of their husband, namely, Md. Omar Ali, who was an Assistant Teacher of Mohanpur Nawhati Shah Reazuddin Smriti Vidyalaya (High School), Amadpur, Bardhaman. The facts of the case/in a nutshell, are as follows : The husband of the petitioners, namely, Md. Omar All, was an Assistant Teacher of the aforesaid school. He died in harness on October 19, 1979. The petitioners prayed for granting benefits under the said Scheme. The above prayer of the petitioners was not considered by the respondent-authority. They filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bearing W.P. No. 20622(W) of 2007 (In Re :Ashrunehar Bibi and Another v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) and the same was disposed of on May 7, 2008 with a direction upon the respondent No. 2 to consider their prayer. Pursuant to the above direction, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the claim of the petitioners for granting benefits under the said Scheme was rejected on the following grounds : i) The deceased husband of the petitioners rendered service in the school under reference for a period less than 20 years. ii) Circular No. 163 Edn. (B) dated June 15, 1990 extended the benefit under the said Scheme to those teachers and non- Teaching staff, both primary and secondary, who had received pension on June 15,1990.
(3.) For examining the validity of the aforesaid first ground, the provisions of Rule 23 of the said Rules are quoted below : "23. Family Pension - (1) Family pension is admissible to the member of the family of an employee who dies while in service after rendering at least one year's service. (2) Benefit shall also be admissible in case of death of an employee after retirement if at the time of death he was in receipt of compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation Pension or Gratuity." In view of the provisions of Clause-(1) of Rule 23 of the said Rules, the benefits under the said Scheme were admissible to the petitioners. It is a matter of surprise for the Court that the respondent No. 2, being a responsible Government Officer, did not take the pain of going through the above provisions of the said Scheme and deprived the petitioners from enjoying the benefits of the aforesaid welfare legislation.;