Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - (1.) The petitioner who has pressed WPA No. 17718 of 2016, has displayed great fortitude and consistency over the course of the previous three decades in fighting for a cause of action which has never been truly resolved in spite of multiple interventions before this writ court. As a cathartic measure, the petitioner has now mounted a challenge principally, to the provisions of clause 7(e)(iv) of Chapter - III and provisions of Chapter 8 of Chapter -IV of the West Bengal Recognised Non-Government Educational Institutions Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the "1981 Scheme")
(2.) The facts of this case possess a chequered history and in so far as they are material to this writ petition are circumscribed within a narrow compass and is encapsulated as follows: a) Alongside other sponsored candidates, the petitioner had appeared in an interview before a Selection Committee of the Golabari High School on March 25, 1989. The petitioner avers that post such an interview, the legally formed Selection Committee prepared a panel of candidates for the post of Additional Assistant Teacher in the language group wherein the petitioner was placed on top of the panel. But, for reasons attributable to "infighting amongst the members of the Managing Committee" of the aforesaid school, the process of appointment was delayed. b) Given the persistent delay in the appointment process, the petitioner pressed the first of his many writ petitions bearing the number registered as C.O. No. 5448(W) of 1994. By an order dated March 9, 1994, Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J., had granted an interim order which had directed the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Dakshin Dinajpur to consider and grant approval for the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher in the Language Group. c) This writ petition bearing C.O. No. 5448(W) of 1994 was considered along with W.P. No. 29603(W) of 1997, filed by another petitioner - Supriya Deb, by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench had ordered that the matter be remitted back to the learned Single Judge for common hearing and joint disposal. By orders dated April 27, 2004 and April 28, 2004, Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J., passed a detailed order which highlighted irregularities in the decision-making process of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school which was de hors the then extant Rules which were applicable. However, the substance of such order recorded the interim order passed by Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J., dated March 9, 1994 and reiterated that no appointment could be given without consideration and approval of the previous panel. d) Pursuant to the order of the Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J., dated April 27, 2004 and April 28, 2004, the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Dakshin Dinajpur accorded approval to the panel in which the petitioner had originally secured top position vide a Memo dated October 12, 2004. Based on such approval, the petitioner was furnished an appointment letter dated October 13, 2004. He joined on the following day itself in the post of Assistant Teacher in Language and Literature group against additional vacancy. e) While the petitioner was initially approved on the aforesaid post for a period of two years commencing from October 14, 2004 to October 13, 2006 as per the order of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Dakshin Dinajpur, the petitioner ultimately retired from service on September 29, 2012. f) Post his retirement from such service, the petitioner was informed by a memo dated January 6, 2012, that he was disentitled to claiming pensionary benefits as he had not met the stipulated "minimum qualifying service" under the 1981 Scheme; for the uninitiated, such a period is pegged at ten years. g) Yet again, the petitioner was compelled to knock on the doors of this Court and invoke its writ jurisdiction. In such writ petition bearing W.P. No. 18920(W) of 2012, Samapti Chatterjee, J., by an order dated December 14, 2015, the learned Single Judge had set aside the impugned memo dated January 6, 2012 and had directed inter alia, the Secretary, Education Department (S.E.), Government of West Bengal to condone the delay in respect of the petitioner's length of service. In spite of such order, the mandated State respondent dragged their feet as far as compliance with the order of Samapti Chatterjee, J., dated December 14, 2015 was concerned. h) Facing persistence sluggishness at the hands of the State Respondents, the petitioner filed a contempt application bearing number CPAN 384 of 2016. The contempt application was ultimately disposed of by an order dated June 23, 2016 which had recorded that a compliance report had been filed. Nonetheless, liberty was also granted to the petitioner to challenge the reasoned order that was passed by the Secretary, Education Department (S.E.), Government of West Bengal dated June 23, 2016, which had rejected the petitioner's claim for grant of pensionary benefits. The order had reiterated that the shortfall or deficiency in the petitioner's qualifying service could not be condoned as it was beyond the prescribed limit of six months, set by the 1981 Scheme. i) Accordingly, this impugned order bearing no. 535-SE(Law)/SL/5S- 27/2016 dated June 23, 2016 was challenged in the instant writ petition now being considered. The petitioner has additionally also challenged the vires of the provisions of clause 7(e)(iv) of Chapter - III and provisions of Chapter 8 of Chapter -IV of the 1981 Scheme.
(3.) At the onset of his submissions, Mr. Anami Sikdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded that the conspicuous impediment apropos the pendency of the writ petitions, which the petitioner was compelled to press time and again before this Court, was beyond his control. However, Mr. Sikdar has strenuously contended that as far as the inertness of the various omissions of the State Respondents are concerned, that should not be overlooked by this Court when considering the petitioner's case for the grant of pensionary benefits.;