Employee Transferred From Central Govt Scheme To State University Sanctioned Post, Not Objected By State Govt, Can't Be Denied Retiral Benefits : Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The respondent was appointed as a Field Assistant Grade-II in 1984 under the Comprehensive Scheme on Cost of Cultivation of Principal Agricultural Crops, funded by the Government of India. Later, he was transferred to the Regional Research Station, Kakdwip, under Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV), under the same post. The respondent was appointed against a sanctioned post and absorbed into the regular establishment of the University and served continuously for around 29 years. He drew his salary from the State exchequer.

The Executive Council of University along with the State Government nominees passed resolutions to recognize the respondent's service under the scheme as qualifying for retiral benefits. No objection was ever raised by the State Government during those meetings. Further, the State Government vide communication dated 12.12.2013, granted permission for transfer of employees from one setup to another under the University's control.

The respondent retired on 31.03.2020 and was granted pension. However, his gratuity and leave salary were withheld by the State on the ground that his original appointment lacked prior government approval. Aggrieved by the denial of retiral dues, the respondent filed a writ petition. The Single Judge by an order dated 22.04.2024, allowed the writ petition. It was held that the respondent had served in a sanctioned post, and his service was never objected to by the State. Therefore, his entitlement to retiral benefits could not be denied.

Aggrieved by the same, the State filed an appeal challenging the single judge's order.

It was contended by the Appellant State that the respondent's appointment could not be treated as valid for the purpose of granting retiral benefits because it was made without obtaining prior approval of the State Government, as required under Section 33A of the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Act, 1974. It was further submitted that the respondent was initially engaged under a Central Government-funded scheme and not under the regular establishment. Therefore, in the absence of specific approval from the State, he was not entitled to gratuity and leave salary.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondent 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. Further no objection was raised by the State at any point in time. It was also submitted by the respondent 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.

Findings and observations of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the respondent had served for almost 29 years in a sanctioned post under the regular establishment of the University where he draw salary from the State exchequer. It was noted by the Court 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.

It was further observed by the Court that the respondent's transfer to the regular setup was carried out with the approval of competent authorities. Further the Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, had also granted permission for such transfers vide communication dated 12.12.2013. It was further observed that similarly placed employees had already received retiral benefits.

It was held by the Court that the respondent's appointment was against a sanctioned post. Therefore, the question of further sanctioning after such long service did not arise. It was found by the court that 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. Accordingly, it was held by the Court that there was no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge dated 22nd April, 2024.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal was disposed of.

Case Name: The State of West Bengal vs. Asoke Kumar Maity & Ors.

Case No.: MAT 2098 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Tapan Kumar Mukherjee (Ld. AGP), Rajarshi Basu