Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails a reasoned order dated September 10, 2013.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was re-designated as Burial Ground Recorder with effect from 1991. The service of the petitioner should be considered as such. The impugned order gives benefit of such position with effect from November 24, 2000. Such grant of benefit in the impugned order is perverse. The second aspect of the impugned order, according to him, which is perverse, is the denial of pensionary benefits. He submits that, the petitioner worked with Budge Budge municipality. Such municipality did not have a death cum retirement benefit scheme formulated for its employees under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932. Therefore, by virtue of the West Bengal Municipal (Employees' Death Cum Retirement Benefits) Rules 2003 the provisions of the Rules 2003 will apply in the absence of a regular Death Cum Benefit Scheme being adopted by Budge Budge municipality at the material point of time.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the municipality submits that, although the municipality did not formulate a Death cum Retirement Benefit Scheme for its employees at the material point of time, it was open to the municipality to adopt the existing scheme of the Government, which the municipality did. In support of such contention, he relies upon various documents annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. Moreover, he submits that, the petitioner was given the position of Burial Ground Recorder with effect from November 2000. The petitioner has been given the benefits of such position. All retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner. The claim for the pension made by the petitioner is inadmissible, in the facts of the present case. He refers to a decision taken by the Government, in respect of another employee of the municipality, who was similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the petitioner, where the State has denied such pensionary benefits.;