Debasish Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

Admittedly, the writ petitioner has been a part time employee of Raiganj Polytechnic, having worked therein as a part time workshop instructor from December 01, 1995 to July 31, 2025. The instant writ petition has been filed by him seeking relief that he may be provided with the terminal benefit under Government order No. 431-MD-15011/11/2021 dated February 21, 2025 upon his superannuation

The petitioner as well as the State have been represented.

It appears that since after his appointment with effect from December 01, 1995, the petitioner has been in continuous engagement as a part time workshop instructor with the respondent/Raiganj Polytechnic, without any break. During his service life, the petitioner has been, time to time, granted benefits under different Government orders. In this regard, the Government order dated September 02, 2010 may be mentioned which was on the subject matter “Implementation of contractual fixed remuneration of part time Lecturers and other categories of employees of Government/Government-sponsored polytechnics in the States”. The memorandum contained specific clauses guaranteeing remuneration to the workshop instructors. The petitioner has been provided with appropriate benefit under the same.

Also, the petitioner was granted benefit under the other memorandum dated July 22, 2024. In pursuance thereof, the last drawn remuneration of the petitioner was Rs. 13,750 per month.

Mr. Arunava Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has been in prolonged continuous employment with the respondent Raiganj Polytechnic discharging perennial nature of job and having been granted benefits under various Government notifications as mentioned above, he may be considered as also eligible for the terminal benefit as provided under notification dated February 26, 2021, upon his superannuation.

Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, learned Additional Government Pleader who has represented the State in this case, has however, raised strong objection to the contention and prayer of the petitioner, principally for the reason that the petitioner would not be eligible to be covered as per terms of notification dated February 26, 2021, in so far as, the same is applicable only to the contractual workshop instructors and shall not be applicable to the part time employees like the present petitioner.

The Court is of the view that the question cannot be determined merely by reference to the nomenclature of the engagement as “part-time”. What assumes greater significance is the substance, continuity and duration of the service actually rendered. An employee who has been permitted by the employer to continue in service for a substantial and uninterrupted period cannot, upon reaching the stage of retirement, be regarded as though his association with the establishment was casual, transient or fortuitous. The Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, while examining the nature of retirement benefits, recognised pension as a measure of socio-economic justice and emphasised that retirement benefits are connected with the security of an employee in the later years of life. The Court also underscored that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and requires persons similarly situated, in relation to the object sought to be achieved, to receive equal treatment. The principle is not that every part-time employee must necessarily be equated with a whole-time contractual employee; rather, where the object of the terminal benefit is to recognise and secure the fruits of long and continuous service, the Court does not find any distiction based solely upon the quantum of working hours, which does not bear a rational nexus with that object.

The circumstance that the State has already recognised the entitlement of contractual employees to terminal benefits is also a relevant consideration. If such benefit is intended as a recognition of sustained service and as a measure of post-service security, the Court should not adopt an interpretation which permits an employee who has rendered substantial and continuous service for a considerable part of his working life, to be deprived of the benefit altogether, merely because his engagement was described as part-time. The principle of beneficial construction assumes particular relevance where the provision or scheme has a welfare-oriented purpose. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that provisions intended to confer social-security or welfare benefits should be interpreted so as to advance their underlying purpose rather than defeat it. D.S. Nakara (supra) itself describes pension as a socio-economic justice measure and treats the security of persons in the evening of their lives as an important constitutional objective. Consequently, where two categories of employees have both rendered long and continuous service and the terminal benefit is directed substantially towards recognition of such service, exclusion of one category cannot rest merely upon a formal difference in nomenclature.

Judgment of Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 may be mentioned which recognise close interrelationship between legitimate expectation and Article 14 of the Constitution. As the State has recognised terminal benefits for employees engaged on a contractual basis and has, over a prolonged period, continued to utilise the services of a part-time employee in a comparable and enduring manner, the latter may legitimately expect that his long service will not be rendered wholly valueless at the point of retirement without a rational justification. The decisive consideration, therefore, is whether the exclusion of such employee from the terminal-benefit regime is supported by a legally sustainable differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the benefit. If no such justification is discernible, a complete denial of terminal benefits to a long-serving part-time employee may offend the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness under Article 14. In such a case the long serving, now retired part-time employee would be justified to be allowed with the terminal benefit available to the contractual employees.

It reveals that the respondent authority has earlier granted the petitioner “contractual fixed remuneration”, in terms of notification dated September 02, 2010. Though there is denial on part of the respondent as regards petitioner’s entitlement under the notification dated February 26, 2021, his continuous and uninterrupted service with the said respondent authority remains unchallenged in the instant case. Accordingly, this Court finds it proper that after unblemished, continuous service for several years, the petitioner should be treated as entitled for certain amount of security and solace, in lieu of his service to the respondent institution throughout his life. Accordingly, let this writ petition be disposed of with direction upon the respondent No. 4, to issue order directing for payment of terminal benefit to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs pursuant to the notification/order dated February 26, 2021 to the petitioner, since retired, positively within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Let it be mentioned that the order as above, shall not act as a precedent in respect of similar cases in the institution or otherwise in future, but is only an one-time beneficial security measure for the present petitioner, upon his superannuation.

With the direction as above, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.