I.P. Mukerji, Protik Prakash Banerjee,J. - (1.) The facts of this case are very similar to those in Haradhan Mahato v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 2013(3) CLJ(Cal) 520. To highlight this factual identity, we set out paras. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgement:- '9. The respondent authorities, therefore, denied the benefits of usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner for not completing the prescribed usual period of 10 years, which, according to our calculation, comes to less than a period of three months. However, as we have already mentioned that the petitioner was appointed on 1st July, 1968 a seasonal Khalashi and discharged his regular duty in the concerned establishment, the said period should not be altogether ignored and should be taken into consideration to make up the short- fall in computing the service period for the purpose of granting benefit of usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner. In spite of serving the organisation since 1968 the benefit of pension should not be denied by the Government of West Bengal on the plea that the post in question was formally sanctioned afterwards and formal office Order was issued at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner although, fact remains that the concerned establishment of the State of West Bengal enjoyed the service of the employee concerned, namely, the petitioner herein, for a period of almost 37 years (approximately). A poor employee like the petitioner, therefore, cannot be denied the benefit of usual pension and other retiral benefits in spite of serving the same establishment continuously for a period of more than 35 years on the plea that the office order relating to permanent absorption of the petitioner was issued at the fag end of the service career as a result whereof the said petitioner, did not complete 10 years service period after issuing the formal office order. From the copy of the letter of the Director of Personnel and Ex-officio Chief Engineer, I and W Directorate, Government of West Bengal, we find that after entry into the service the petitioner along with other seasonal employees repeatedly requested the concerned authorities to regularise their service by issuing appropriate office order which the concerned Authority did at a belated stage. 10. The aforesaid delay in issuing the formal office order regularising service of the petitioner cannot deprive the said petitioner from enjoying the benefit of usual pension and other retiral benefits on the ground that the said employee did not complete 10 years of service period, which is factually not correct in view of the fact that, admittedly, from the office record we find that the date of entry of the petitioner in the service as seasonal Khalashi under the Kangsabati Canals Division No. 1 is 1st July, 1968. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the benefit of usual pension and gratuity should not be denied to the petitioner on the alleged plea that the said petitioner did not complete 10 years service before retirement. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are unable to approve the decision of the learned Tribunal and, therefore, we set aside the same. The Respondent Authorities are directed to grant the usual pension and gratuity to the petitioner treating the said petitioner in permanent service at least for a period 10 years before retirement on attaining the age superannuation. 13. The respondent authorities are directed to grant the aforesaid pension to the petitioner without any further delay but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Respondent Authorities are also directed to sanction entire admissible amount towards the arrear pension to the petitioner within the aforesaid period.'
(2.) In this case, the first respondent-writ petitioner joined the concerned school as a member of the organizing staff in 1971. On 29th September 1992, the district level inspection team (DLIT) carried out the usual inspection of the school. It was recognised on 1st May 2000. On 10th August 2000, the said respondent's appointment was regularised with effect from 1st May 2000. He retired after 26th February 2005.
(3.) Under the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981, the qualifying service is ten years. Under paragraph 7(b) of the scheme, the service has to be continuous and of a whole-time approved employee. Paragraph 7(e)(iv) stipulates that the government has a discretion to condone 'a deficiency of six months in the qualifying service of the employees .... ... .... Educational institutions/Organisations.';