- (1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 287 of 2011. The Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for clubbing the period spent by him on deputation with Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.) with his employment as a Sub-Inspector in the Directorate of Rationing, Government of West Bengal. The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Directorate of Rationing, Government of West Bengal on 16th January 1965. He was sent on deputation to Food Corporation of India on 3rd April 1967 unilaterally and without his consent. The petitioner continued to work with the Food Corporation of India till he was repatriated to his parent department on 17th February 1976. The petitioner was confirmed in service in the post of Sub-Inspector on 1st June 1976. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 08th July 2005 for violating Rules 26 & 34(3)(iii) & (iv) of W.B.S.R. Part-I. The petitioner retired from service on 31st August 2005. Thereafter a second show-cause notice was issued to him and the petitioner replied to the same. However, he was punished on 29th March, 2006 by which order 100% of his pension was withdrawn.
(2.) Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 1893 of 2006 before the Administrative Tribunal. That application was disposed of on 23rd December 2008. The order of punishment was quashed and the Special Secretary was directed to consider the petitioner's case within 12 weeks from communication of the order.
(3.) Despite communicating the order to the respondents on 7th January, 2009 there was no response from them. The petitioner; therefore, sought information under the Right to Information Act with respect to the pension payable to him. He was informed that he was not entitled to pro-rata pension and gratuity by an order of the Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department dated 18th January 2011. The Principal Secretary confirmed that the petitioner was not entitled to pro-rata pension and gratuity which the Tribunal had asked him to consider in view of Rule 189(A) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.;