HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) THIS writ petitioner has impugned an inaction on the part of the respondent no. 3 - 5 to release the arrear salary and also to pay the entire retiral benefits. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Kamardanga Free Primary School, West Dinajpur on and from the month of September 1963. The petitioner used to put his signature on the monthly return which was submitted to the Sub-Inspector of School at the end of each month. Some discrepancy arose regarding putting the signature in the third column of the monthly return below one Sri Mahiuddin who was appointed subsequently. The salary of the writ petitioner was not paid from the months between June to November, 1979, April to December, 1980 and January to December, 1981 and from January to April, 1982. It is contended by the writ petitioner that during such period he rendered his services continuously. Subsequently the writ petitioner was recommended to undergo the primary training from March 1982 for a period of eight months and during the training period the petitioner was paid salary.
(2.) AFTER successful completion of the said training the petitioner joined the said school on and from January 1983 but the salary was again stopped by the authorities. The petitioner made several representations. The then President of the District School Board issued memo no. 94/3 dated 6.5.1988 directing the members of the said Board to hold an enquiry and submit the report to the office of the Sub-Inspector of School, Primary Education. It is contended that no report has been filed as yet. Sub-Inspector of School (PE) issued memo no. 40(2) dated 25.8.1988 seeking instruction from the then President of the School Board, West Dinajpur in relation to the payment of salary to the writ petitioner as the writ petitioner has rendered his services continuously. The petitioner further contends that the petitioner also rendered services as Polling Officer and was paid honorarium for the same. It is specifically averred by the writ petitioner that the District Inspector of School (PE) held an enquiry and submitted the report to the concerned District Primary School Council and a decision was taken to release the monthly salary on and from the month of May 1996 subject to filing a declaration by the writ petitioner to withdraw the pending case before the high court being C.R No. 2136 (w) of 1981 initiated by the writ petitioner complaining that he cannot be directed to put his signature on the third column of the monthly return below the said Mahiuddin, and all other claims. It is a case of the writ petitioner that on and from the month of May 1996 he has received monthly salary till the date of attainment of superannuation. In this writ application, the writ petitioner not only claimed the arrear salary for the period he rendered services as aforesaid but also prayed for a direction upon the concerned authority to release the retiral benefits admissible to the writ petitioner. Mr. Sougata Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered services for the aforesaid period as mentioned above and the authority cannot withhold the payment of the monthly salary to the writ petitioner. He contends that the earlier writ petition being CR no. 2136 (w) of 1981 was filed for a direction to allow the writ petitioner to put his signature in the second column of the monthly return and not in the third column after Sri Mahiuddin and thus he contends that the payment of arrear salary was not the subject matter in the said writ application. He further contends that the declaration dated 24.5.1996 has no nexus to the payment of arrear salary and the same was executed for release of the monthly salary on and from the month of May 1996. He further submits that the authorities concerned have not paid the admissible retiral benefits on and from 1st November 2001. He concluded his argument by saying that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated in monitory terms by awarding an interest over and above the arrear salaries and the payment of retiral benefit.
(3.) MR. Partha Sarathi Deb Barman, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3, District Primary School Council, Uttar Dinajpur, contends that the district West Dinajpur was bifurcated into two districts i.e. North Dinajpur and the West Dinajpur and now the school where the petitioner is working comes within the control and management of the District Primary School council, North Dinajpur. He submits that the then Chairman of the Council North Dinajpur resolved the long pending disputes by issuing memo no. 252/2 dated 14.5.1996 for release of the pension to the writ petitioner on and form the month of April 1996. He further contends that in absence of any attendance register and in view of the issuance of memo no. 223 dated 3.2.1983 by which the salary was withheld, there is no available record for cancellation of the said memo no. 223 dated 3.2.1983 excepting that by a subsequent memo no. 252/2 dated 14.5.1996 by which the salary was released on and from the month of April 1996. He further contends that the petitioner thereafter received the monthly salary up to the age of superannuation and was granted the extension of service up to the age of 65 years. He further contends that during the pendency of the writ application the authorities have paid the provisional pension. He strenuously argued that the petitioner himself executed and submitted a declaration on 24.5.1996 and abandoned the claim of the arrear salary, if there be any. He thus submits that the claim of the writ petitioner is not tenable. In reply, the writ petitioner contends that the President, District School Board, West Dinajupr issued memo no. 1638/1 dated 12.8.1988 directing the sub-Inspector of School to release the salary of the writ petitioner on and from the month of September 1988 in a regular course and also to pay all arrear payments upon taking into account the existing rules. Thus he contends that in view of the issuance of the subsequent Memo No. 1638/1 dated 12.8.1988 the earlier circular by which the salary of the petitioner was withheld stood superceded. He thus submits that the stand of the respondent authority is not tenable.;