- (1.) The writ petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned action of the respondent-College for not releasing the petitioner's arrear salary since the date of petitioner's reinstatement in service as per order of Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University, being the appellate authority, dated 9th June, 1987 till the date of his retirement on 31st January, 2011 and for a direction upon the College authority to transmit all relevant documents in respect of petitioner's case including his service book in original to the Director of Public Instructions, Government of West Bengal for grant of pension and other benefits payable to the petitioner and also for a direction upon the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the arrear salary as well as retiral dues from the date of entitlement till the actual date of payment.
(2.) The brief facts involved in this case are that the petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-typist in Bhairab Ganguly College, Belghoria, Kolkata-56 on August 10, 1973. His service was confirmed on December 10, 1974. On or about 11th May, 1981 petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the Principal, Bhairab Ganguly College (in short 'the College'). Thereafter petitioner was dismissed from his service with effect from 21st May, 1981 by an impugned resolution adopted by the Governing Body of the College in its meeting held on 20th May, 1981.
(3.) The writ petitioner filed an appeal to the Director of Public Instructions, Government of West Bengal. Thereafter he moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the Director of Public Instructions, Government of West Bengal be directed to dispose of his appeal as well as application for stay made in the said appeal. Notice of the said application being C.O. No.11713(W) of 1981 having been served upon the respondent, Principal of the College and the University had appeared in the said civil order. On 1st December, 1981 the writ petition was disposed of. The learned Single Judge recorded in his order that according to the Statute 13(b) of the Statutes framed under the Calcutta University Act, 1961 appeal against the order of dismissal would have to be preferred before the ViceChancellor of Calcutta University within 30 days of the receipt of the order imposing punishment. Petitioner's learned Advocate at that point of time submitted before the learned Single Judge that his client would prefer an appeal before the appropriate authority. The learned Judge declined to make any observation as regards limitation, whether in computing limitation, the appellate authority ought to exclude the time during which the writ application was pending. However, the learned Judge held that the appeal was preferred before a wrong forum and as such prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to expedite the hearing and disposal of the said appeal had become infructuous. It was also observed that it was not necessary for the learned Single Judge to say that the appellate authority before whom the appeal would be filed, would consider the question of limitation in accordance with law. However, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Vice-Chancellor, Calcutta University against the impugned order of punishment. On 31st March, 1983 another learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court passed an order directing the Vice-Chancellor, Calcutta University to dispose of the appeal at an early date preferably within four weeks in accordance with the Calcutta University First Statute, 1979.;