Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 19th September, 2011 passed by the respondent No. 2.
(2.) Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as an organising teacher in the unrecognised sections of Classes IX and X of a junior high school, namely, Hakola Junior High School. The petitioner and others preferred a writ petition being CO 194 (W) of 1993 inter alia praying for up-gradation of the school and for regularisation of their services. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 26th November, 1993 directing the Education Department to forward the District Level Inspection Team (in short, DLIT) report to the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (in short, Board) and it was expected that the Board would accord necessary approval for up-gradation of the school. It was also directed that upon receipt of necessary sanction towards up-gradation, the respondent No. 3 therein will take necessary steps for absorbing the teachers according to their seniority and requirements. In the said order it was also observed that "the absorbed teaching and non-teaching staff will be entitled to get the notional benefit from their date of appointment in their respective posts". Pursuant to such directions the school was upgraded with permission to open class-IX and class-X with effect from 1st May, 1994 and 1st May, 1995 respectively. Thereafter the respondent No. 5 by a memo dated 11th July, 1995 approved the appointment of three teachers including the petitioner with effect from 1st May, 1995 and prior thereto, by a memo dated 31st January, 1995 the said respondent No. 5 approved the appointment of three other teachers from 1st May, 1994 but notional benefit was not extended to the petitioner and others from their respective dates of appointment as reflected in the DLIT report and as such a representation was submitted on 14th December, 1998 to the respondent No. 5, who forwarded the same to the respondent No. 3. Upon considering the same, the respondent No. 3 directed the respondent No. 5 to conduct an enquiry. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted and a report was filed observing inter alia that all the other teachers approved along with the petitioner were fulfilling ten years of qualifying service to be get pension and as such similar benefit may be given to the petitioner. By a memo dated 7th June, 2000, the respondent No. 5 forwarded the enquiry report to the respondent No. 3. As no decision was taken by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P. 10754 (W) 2004 which was disposed of by an order dated 7th September, 2004 directing the respondent No. 3 to take a final decision regarding grant of approval of service of the petitioner as recommended by the District Inspector of Schools. Pursuant to the said order the respondent No. 3 passed an order on 21st April, 2005 rejecting the petitioner's claim. Challenging the same the petitioner again approached this Court by a writ petition being WP 13543 (W) of 2005 which was disposed of by an order dated 12th May, 2011 directing the Principal Secretary, School Education Departments to examine the petitioner's right in the light of a memorandum dated 2nd February, 2009. Pursuant to the said order the Secretary passed an order dated 19th September, 2011 rejecting the petitioner's claim. In the midst thereof, the petitioner attained the date of his superannuation on 31st March, 2004.
(3.) Mr. Das contends that the impugned order dated 19th September, 2011 is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the same has been issued being oblivious of the observation made by this Court in the first writ petition being CO 194(W) of 1993. The fact that the petitioner was working in the said school as an organising teacher would be explicit from DLIT report on the basis of which the school was upgraded. In the said report the date of appointment of the petitioner as organising teacher was stated to be 1st July, 1982 and in terms of the order passed in CO 194(W) of 1993 the respondents ought to have counted the petitioner's service on and from 1st July, 1982. The said period of service rendered in the unrecognised sections of the said school should not be altogether ignored and should be taken into consideration at least to make up the shortfall in computing service for the purpose of granting benefit of pension. All the other teachers, who were regularised along with the petitioner, got the benefits of pension.;