Shri Subodh Kumar Mallick vs State of West Bengal & Ors

The petitioner seeks grant of pensionary benefits upon granting notional benefit to the petitioner since the date of the conduct of the interview.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, for no fault of the petitioner appointment to the petitioner was granted on April 21, 2005. With the petitioner superannuating on February 28, 2013 he will not have the qualifying service to obtain pension. He submits that, the selection process was initiated in 1988. The petitioner participated in such selection process. A panel was prepared. The petitioner being aggrieved by the decision of the selection panel filed a writ petition. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order dated August 2, 1989. The panel was directed to be recast. The panel was recast. One of the panelled candidate filed a writ petition and obtained an ex parte order of stay.

That stay was vacated in 2001 with the writ petition being dismissed for default. The petitioner came to know of the disposal of the writ petition in 2004 and filed a writ petition seeking direction on the authorities to grant the petitioner the appointment. Ultimately, the authorities granted approval of appointment to the petitioner on April 21, 2005. Therefore, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in obtaining the appointment. He relies upon (2009) 6 SCC 791 (Basanti Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board & Ors.) and submits that, the delay being explained should be condoned. The petitioner should be afforded the notional benefits. In any event, he submits that, the petitioner made a representation, which is yet to be responded to. Therefore, the authorities should be directed to respond to such representation.

The state is represented. Learned advocate for the State contends that, apart from condoning six months period, the authorities have no jurisdiction to grant the notional benefits, as prayed for, by the petitioner.

The qualifying service of the petitioner falls short of more than six months, even if, the petitioner is granted benefit of notional benefits of six months time. The petitioner was appointed on April 21, 2005 and he superannuated on February 28, 2013.

Basanti Prasad (supra) is of the view that, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, if the delay/laches in making and filing the writ petition stands explained. Such ratio is not attached to the facts of the present case. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner was granted appointment in 2005 by reason of which, the petitioner fell short of the qualifying service.

The request to direct the authorities to dispose of the representation, cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case, as, the authorities would not be in a position to grant any relief which the petitioner seeks.

In such circumstances, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

W.P. No.28134 (W) of 2012 is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.