Keshab Hazra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

This matter has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents in particular, the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 that is the Director of Local Bodies and Chairperson, Board of Administrator of Baidyabati municipality to verify the fixation of pay under Baidyabati municipality and to release the final pension and other retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner who superannuated from service on 31^st December, 2022.

Mr. Sarkar learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of sanctioned staff of Baidyabati municipality as on 1^st April, 2019. By referring to the serial No. 60 of the aforesaid document, he would submit that the petitioner who is designated as Mazdoor had joined the municipality on 1^st January, 1987 and his appointment has been approved by the Director of Local Bodies vide order No. 1868/DLB/B-504/15-96 dated 15^th December, 2003 in Group D, in the pay band of Rs. 9980/- having a Grade Pay of Rs. 900/- and basic pay of Rs. 11,880/- on 1^st April, 2019. He would submit that the petitioner has since upon reaching the age of superannuation, retired from service with effect from 31^st December, 2022. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the memorandum dated 19^th February, 2022 issued by the Board of Councilors of Baidyabati municipality. By also drawing attention of this Court to the document dated 7^th January, 2023 and the document dated 11^th December, 2024, it is submitted that the petitioner’s service file along with two other employees have already been forwarded to the Director of Local Bodies. Though, the other two employees named in the aforesaid memorandum have been favoured with their respective PPO and are receiving regular pension, in the petitioner’s case, the PPO is yet to be issued.

Both the municipality and the State is represented.

Ms. Pal, learned advocate representing the State has placed before this Court a report issued by the senior law officer of Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance(DPPG) dated 10^th August, 2026 and would submit that respondent No. 6 is a mere audit office, and issues PPOs on receipt of the pension files with sanction from the pension sanctioning authority that is the Chairman of the concerned municipality. According to the office note, the e-pension file vide No. 14012500532 is pending before the Chairman, Baidyabati municipality since 24^th March, 2026 as no action has been taken from the end of the municipality since then.

Ms. Pal, has also drawn attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the objection which requires to be addressed by the municipality. To morefully appreciate the same, the relevant objection is extracted hereinbelow:

As would appear from the above, the issue with regard to the petitioner’s joining to the post of Mazdoor with retrospective effect from 1^st June, 1995 though the municipality having absorbed the employee in the post of Road Colie vide order dated 22^nd May, 2009 has been flagged. The other objections are with regard to nomination of death gratuity and submission of physical file along with required documents.

In this context, it shall be relevant to note by memorandum dated 12^th August, 2026, the DPPG had flagged the above issue to the finance officer of Baidyabati Municipality and had also noted therein that the petitioner though was appointed the post of Road Colie since 1^st June, 1995, the approval for appointment was against Mazdoor which is a re-designated post of NSC and that although the municipality had requested the DPPG to incorporate details of pensions in Post C and Post D, the changes could not be made as DPPG is not authorized. The same also flags that since there is Chairman/Administrator, the municipality had expressed its inability to access the login for appropriate action. To morefully appreciate the same, the relevant memorandum is extracted hereinbelow:

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioner’s pension file cannot be heldbacks by the municipality by reasons of unavailability of Chairman. The State must look into the matter and so the needful. Though, Mr. Das learned advocate for the municipality would submit that the petitioner’s pension paper has already been forwarded to the DPPG, I am of the view that inter se paper works between the municipality, the DPPG and the Director of local bodies cannot stand in the way of the petitioner being entitled to pension especially when the petitioner’s entitlement has not been disputed by the respondents and the petitioner has retired from service on 31^st December, 2022.

In the peculiar facts, I direct all the concerned respondents including the Director of Local Bodies, the DPPG and the municipality to act in tandem and ensure compliance with all formalities as are necessary for issuance of the PPO in favour of the petitioner and for ultimate disbursal thereof in favour of the petitioner. It is expected that all papers works for the purpose of issuing PPO shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order and the PPO shall be issued within a week therefrom. It is expected that petitioner starts receiving pension within 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.