In a significant decision, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De, held that an employee transferred from a central government scheme to a state university-sanctioned post, without any objections from the State Government at the time of transfer, cannot be denied retiral benefits. This ruling in the case of The State of West Bengal vs. Asoke Kumar Maity & Ors., Case No.: MAT 2098 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2024, reinforces the rights of employees serving in sanctioned posts under state-funded institutions, ensuring fair treatment for retiral benefits like gratuity and leave salary.
Background of the Case
The case centers on the respondent, Asoke Kumar Maity, who was appointed as a Field Assistant Grade-II in 1984 under the Comprehensive Scheme on Cost of Cultivation of Principal Agricultural Crops, a centrally funded initiative. He was later transferred to the Regional Research Station, Kakdwip, under Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) in the same role. The respondent was appointed against a sanctioned post, absorbed into the regular establishment of the University, and served continuously for around 29 years, drawing his salary from the State exchequer.
The Executive Council of BCKV, with State Government nominees present, passed resolutions recognizing the respondent’s service under the scheme as qualifying for retiral benefits. No objections were raised by the State during these meetings. Additionally, the State Government, vide communication dated 12.12.2013, granted permission for the transfer of employees from one setup to another under the University’s control.
Upon retiring on 31.03.2020, Maity received his pension but was denied gratuity and leave salary by the State, which cited a lack of prior government approval for his original appointment. Aggrieved, Maity filed a writ petition, and the Single Judge, by an order dated 22.04.2024, allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondent had served in a sanctioned post, his service was never objected to by the State, and thus, his entitlement to retiral benefits could not be denied. The State appealed this decision, leading to the Division Bench hearing.
Arguments in the Appeal
The State argued that Maity’s appointment was invalid for retiral benefits, as it lacked prior approval under Section 33A of the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Act, 1974. They further contended that his initial engagement under a central government scheme did not qualify him for benefits under the University’s regular establishment.
In response, Maity’s counsel emphasized that the Executive Council of the University, along with State Government nominees, had resolved that employees like the respondent would be entitled to retiral benefits, and no objection was raised by the State at any point. They also highlighted that, since his transfer on 22nd March 1991, he had served under the University’s regular establishment and received his salary from the State exchequer, which proved his appointment.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Division Bench carefully examined the case, noting that the respondent had served for almost 29 years in a sanctioned post under the regular establishment of the University, drawing his salary from the State exchequer. The Court further observed that the Executive Council of the University, in meetings attended by State Government nominees, had resolved that services rendered under the Comprehensive Scheme would be treated as approved qualifying service for retiral benefits, and no objection was raised by the State at any point.
Moreover, the respondent’s transfer to the regular setup was carried out with the approval of competent authorities, and the Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, had also granted permission for such transfers vide communication dated 12.12.2013. The Court noted that similarly placed employees had already received retiral benefits, strengthening Maity’s case.
The Bench held that the respondent’s appointment was against a sanctioned post, and therefore, the question of further sanctioning after such long service did not arise. The State’s attempt to deny benefits due to a lack of initial approval was deemed untenable, as the State Government was aware of the respondent’s service status and could not now take a contrary stand to deny retiral benefits like gratuity and leave salary. Consequently, the Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge dated 22nd April 2024.
Implications of the Judgment
This landmark ruling sets a precedent for employees transferred from central government schemes to state university posts, ensuring they are not arbitrarily denied retiral benefits. It emphasizes the importance of consistent state approval processes and protects long-serving employees in sanctioned posts from retrospective objections. The decision also underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding fairness in employment disputes.
Case Details
- Case Name: The State of West Bengal vs. Asoke Kumar Maity & Ors.
- Case No.: MAT 2098 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2024
- Court: Calcutta High Court
- Bench: Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De
- Counsel for the Appellant: Tapan Kumar Mukherjee (Ld. AGP), Rajarshi Basu
- Counsel for the Respondents: Ranajit Chatterjee, Aniruddha Mitra, Prasenjit De; Lina Maju
With this judgment, the appeal was disposed of, affirming the Single Judge’s order and securing Maity’s rightful retiral benefits. This decision marks a significant step toward ensuring equitable treatment for employees in similar circumstances across state-funded institutions.