‘Can’t shrug responsibility’: 47 years on, Calcutta High Court restores teacher’s pension benefits

Written by: Richa Sahay

Calcutta High Court news: In a case that has spanned nearly half a century, the Calcutta High Court struck a delicate balance between equity and delay, granting full pensionary benefits to a retired headmaster while setting aside the direction to pay back wages for nearly two decades.

Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee noted that the retired headmaster, Chittaranjan Roy, had enrolled as an advocate in 1988 during the pendency of the petition and continued practising thereafter.

“The court also cannot shrug off its responsibility towards the delay in the disposal of the writ petition for more than four decades. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the equities need to be balanced among the parties,” the order dated April 17 read.

The Calcutta High Court was hearing an appeal filed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education challenging an order that had directed payment of arrears and pensionary benefits to Roy.

Dispute dating back to 1978

The case traces back to 1978, when Roy challenged the reinstatement of another individual as headmaster, despite his own prior appointment and approval to the post in 1976.

While Roy continued to receive a salary till January 1985, he did not render service thereafter and ultimately retired in 2004, even as the petition remained pending and was decided only in 2025.

The single judge had previously directed that the period from 1985 till retirement be treated as service, along with full back wages and pensionary benefits.

Story continues below this ad

Aggrieved by the same, the state authorities approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the single judge’s March 2025 order.

‘Matter pending for 47 years’

The petition, pending for about 47 years, was disposed of without seeking any explanation from Roy as to why he did not take proper steps earlier for its expeditious disposal, the court noted.

The argument that Roy lost interest in the matter as he had joined the legal profession thereafter, having obtained enrolment in 1988, cannot be brushed aside, the Calcutta High Court pointed out.

However, it is also a fact that, without any initiation of any disciplinary proceeding or any order, Roy was kept out of his service without any convincing reason.

A remedy is called discretionary when it is not available as a matter of right and may be refused by the court when the conduct of a person is such that he does not deserve the discretionary relief.

It is a matter of great significance that at one point in time, equity that existed in favour of one melts into total insignificance and paves the path for extinction with the passage of time.

Notional benefits to be granted

The Calcutta High Court held that the direction towards payment of back wages for the period from February 1985 till the date of his retirement on May 31, 2004, is not sustainable in law.

It is no longer res integra (an unsettled question of law) that direction towards payment of back wages is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by a court, keeping in mind the facts in its entirety.

The direction towards payment of back wages for the period from February 1985 till the date of his superannuation in 2004 should stand quashed.

The notional benefits, including the benefits of revision of scale of pay, should be granted for the said period from February 1985 to 2004.

It is made clear that the state authorities should ensure that full pensionary benefits, along with all arrears, are disbursed in favour of Roy positively within eight weeks, subject to compliance with the necessary formalities by Roy.

The school authorities should also extend all assistance for the disbursement of the said benefits.

Arguments

Representing the state, advocate Avishek Prasad submitted before the Calcutta High Court that the petition was filed in 1978 and was disposed of about 47 years thereafter by the order in the present appeal. It was further added that the single judge erroneously issued directions towards payment of full back wages from the month of February 1985 to May 31, 2004.

On the contrary, appearing for Roy, advocate Goswami denied and disputed the contention of Prasad and submitted that no disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against Roy, nor any order of suspension was passed. He added, however, that his salary was illegally stopped on and from February 1985 and he was forcibly restrained from joining the said post.

He further submitted that the wrongdoer was the employer and the sufferer was Roy, and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer for its wrongdoing by relieving it of the burden to pay to the employee his dues in the form of full back wages.

Story continues below this ad

He even pointed out that Roy was also willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully prevented from working.