- (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging a decision rendered by the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Hooghly, consequent upon an order passed by this Court on 10th July, 2007, in an earlier writ petition, being WP No.24167 (W) of 2005.
(2.) PERUSING the impugned decision, it appears that the same has been rendered in conformity with the specific directions given by the Court, as contained in the order dated 10th July, 2007. The impugned decision is also supported with cogent reasons and the concerned authority has considered the entire matter in details, including its factual aspects. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, disputes the factual correctness of some of the observations made by the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Hooghly, as contained in the impugned decision. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no scope for the writ Court to revisit the matter. The relevant portion of the order dated 10th July, 2007, is reproduced hereinbelow: - ''In my view, the matter should be inquired into by the district inspector of schools (I am told that he is the competent authority to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to pension). It is not possible for the writ court to ascertain whether the documents the petitioner claims he duly submitted were actually submitted, and whether the documents relied on by him are genuine documents. Unless it is established that the petitioner duly submitted the requisite application changing his option from contributory provident fund scheme to pension scheme, no mandamus can be issued commanding the respondents to grant pension to him. For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering that the District Inspector of Schools (P.E.), Pipulpati, Hooghly shall give the requisite reasoned decision in the matter after making necessary inquiry. If necessary, the district inspector shall obtain reports from the sub -inspector of schools and the district inspector of schools who were in office when the letter dated June 26th, 2003 was issued by the sub -inspector of schools. The district inspector of schools will be at liberty to obtain opinion from the handwriting expert, if it is necessary. The council will be free to inform the district inspector of schools about its stand. After giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case, the district inspector of schools shall give the decision. The decision in terms of this order shall be given within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner 's own share of contributions to the provident fund and the amount of gratuity payable to him shall be paid to him within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order, and such payment shall be made with statutory interest (in absence of statutory interest, at the rate of 8% per annum) from the date the amount became payable till the date of actual payment. There shall be no order for costs in the case. ''
(3.) THE writ petitioner had accepted the finality of the above order, which was passed at his instance, in respect of the earlier writ petition that he had moved, being WP No.24167 (W) of 2005. A plain reading of the relevant portion of the order dated 10th July, 2007, as reproduced hereinabove, reveals that while disposing of the earlier writ petition, the Court has specifically directed the concerned District Inspector of Schools (PE) to give a reasoned decision in the matter, after making necessary enquiry and also after obtaining reports from the concerned Sub - Inspector of Schools and District Inspector of Schools, who were in office when the letter dated 26th June, 2003, was issued. That apart, the District Inspector of Schools was also granted liberty to obtain opinion from the handwriting expert, if it was necessary.;