Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) 198 retired teachers claim that they should be paid pensions with Revision of Pay and Allowances (ROPA) benefits from the date of their respective retirement.
(2.) THE writ petitioners were working as teachers when ROPA, 1981 had come into effect. The writ petitioners had opted for contributory provident fund scheme. Pursuant to the public notice issued by the State Government in terms of the judgment and order dated July 16, 2013 passed by the Special Bench reported in : 2013 Volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) page 711 (District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata v. Abhijit Baidya & Ors.) the writ petitioners had applied for switch over to Pension -cum -Gratuity. They were allowed to do so. They claim that they should be paid Pension -cum -Gratuity from the respective dates of their retirement and not from the date of refund of employer's share of Contributory Provident Fund. They found their claim on the basis of their impleadment in a Special Leave Petition. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that, they were added as parties to the Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment and order rendered by the Division Bench in : 2008 Volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes page 358 (State of West Bengal v. Biswanath Koley). The special leave petition was subsequently dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Biswanath Koley (supra) was considered by a Special Bench in Abhijit Baidya & Ors. (supra). The writ petitioners were not parties in Abhijit Baidya & Ors. (supra). Although the writ petitioners had exercised their option in terms of a notification issued pursuant to Abhijit Baidya & Ors. (supra) as the writ petitioners were not parties in Abhijit Baidya & Ors. (supra) they are to be governed by the ratio laid down in Biswanath Koley (supra). They are entitled to receive pensionary benefits from the date of their retirement and not from the date of refund.
(3.) ON the issue that 198 writ petitioners can maintain one writ petition, reliance has been placed on : 2006 Volume 1 Calcutta Law Journal (Cal) page 621 (Smt. Parul Debnath & Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors.). Referring to All India Reporter : 2011 Calcutta page 1 (Mrinal Kanti Das & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the ratio laid down therein is not attracted to the facts of this case.;