ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The respondent No. 1 was a teacher in a School aided by the State. He was put under suspension, although the respondent no. 1 claimed that formal order of suspension was never served upon him. According to him, he was physically prevented to join the School. We find from page 39 of the paper book that as per the direction of this Court, in an earlier writ proceeding, the District Inspector of Schools regularized his absence and an ad-hoc payment was arranged on account of suspension allowance. Ultimately the concerned teacher retired from service on October 31, 1999, however, not received any retiral benefit and/or the pension that gave rise to the subsequent litigation, being W.P. 891 (W) of 2004. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated June 28, 2004 appearing at pages 96 to 105 of the paper book, came to conclusion that the Criminal case was being delayed that would not preclude the writ petitioner from receiving the pension and other retiral benefit. His Lordship directed the concerned Criminal Court to expedite the process of disposal of the case. His Lordship extended the provisional pension to the concerned teacher.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State preferred the instant appeal and obtained an order of stay that prevented the respondent to receive any retiral benefit and/or the pension.
(3.) On perusal of the Criminal Court record, we find, that the Court that took cognizance of the offence, did not have the appropriate authority to try the offence. The learned Special Judge did not have power to deal with the cases initiated under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent filed a revisional application before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated April 29, 2011 allowed the revisional application and quashed the criminal case, being Special Trial Case No. 2 of 1996 (State v. Srihari Charan Bera). The learned Single Judge observed that from the record it would appear that he was innocent. The relevant extract of His Lordship observed as quoted below:- "The proceeding pending before the learned court was initiated as back as in the year 1993. The money involved was Rs. 1.14 lakhs. There is specific document with the record wherefrom it appears that the petitioner was found innocent. Therefore, the proceeding initiated against him is standing on wrong footing." 5. His Lordship observed so when the learned Counsel appearing for the State himself pointed out to the Court that the case record would show that the accused was innocent and had no involvement in the matter. In the changed scenario, the appeal has now come up for hearing before us. 6. We have heard Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. 7. Mr. Mukherjee submits that so long the criminal case was pending and the concerned teacher was in custody for a substantial period, he should be in deemed suspension. Mr. Mukherjee admits that in the changed scenario the order of suspension could be sustained. As soon as the teacher reached the age of superannuation, he should be entitled to all admissible benefits. Mr. Mukherjee is, however, critical about the period when he was put under suspension on the issue of release of full salary. 8. Mr. Dhar, however, reiterates that there was no formal order of suspension was issued to him and he would be entitled to all retrial benefits including pensionary benefit, which was wrongfully withheld uptil date. 9. We have considered the rival contentions. In our view, the respondent No. 1 is entitled to all retrial benefit that would be available to him as on the date of his retirement. This would, however, be subject to the applicability of the Rules in respect of the delinquent, who was put under suspension. The concerned teacher suffered the order of suspension because of his arrest. He would be appropriately paid suspension allowance for the period when he suffered the order of suspension. 10. He would, however be entitled all other benefits that would be available to him in law including continuation of service for the purpose of enjoyment of pension and other benefits. The State must extend such benefit with utmost expedition. We hope and trust, the retrial benefit would reach the concerned teacher as early as possible and preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. We also ask the respondent No. 1 to render all necessary assistance to the State through the School so that the State would comply with the order of this Court. 11. It is further made it clear that in case there is any delay in making payment of the same in terms of this order, the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to take appropriate steps against the State including claiming interest due to delayed payment. 12. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. 13. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.;