Kiran Raj

On December 11, 2024, a single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, delivered its judgment in the writ petition filed by Milan Mukhopadhyay, challenging objections raised by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Birbhum, regarding his pensionary entitlements. The Court held that the petitioner’s service at NTPC High School, Malda, from April 7, 1993, to July 4, 2002, must be included for calculating his pensionary benefits, as his appointment was duly approved by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.

The petitioner, who retired on January 31, 2024, as the Headmaster of Kedarpur B.N. High School, Birbhum, faced objections from the District Inspector of Schools while processing his pension application. The objections, raised on January 29, 2024, centered on the contention that NTPC High School was a recognized but unaided institution, financed by the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited and not by the Government of West Bengal. Consequently, the respondent determined that the petitioner’s tenure at NTPC High School should not qualify for pension computation.

In support of his claim, the petitioner relied on an approval memo dated February 16, 1995, issued by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, which validated his appointment as an Assistant Teacher at NTPC High School. The petitioner also referred to a 2007 Division Bench judgment in Md. Mofiur Rahman v. State of West Bengal & Ors., wherein the Court directed the State authorities to grant benefits under the Revision of Pay and Allowance (ROPA) Rules, 1998, recognizing the service of a teacher from NTPC High School for similar purposes.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the approval of the petitioner’s appointment by the Board effectively recognized his service as valid for pensionary computation. It was contended that the objections raised by the District Inspector of Schools overlooked this approval and contradicted established precedents. The petitioner further submitted that his subsequent service in other state-recognized institutions, culminating in his role as Headmaster, strengthened his claim for pensionary benefits inclusive of the NTPC High School tenure.

The General Manager of NTPC Limited, represented by counsel, acknowledged that NTPC High School was a recognized institution but emphasized that it was unaided and partially financed by NTPC Limited. However, the validity of the approval memo issued by the Board in 1995 was not disputed. The State respondents defended the observations made by the District Inspector of Schools, asserting that NTPC High School’s status as an unaided institution precluded its inclusion in pension computations under government norms.

The Court examined the approval memo, noting its recognition of the petitioner’s service as an Assistant Teacher at NTPC High School. It further considered the judgment in Md. Mofiur Rahman, which had settled the principle that service rendered in NTPC High School could be considered for benefits under the ROPA Rules. The Court observed: “Since it has already been decided by the Division Bench in Md. Mofiur Rahman (supra) that there is no impediment in granting benefits under ROPA Rules reckoning past service of another teacher who was working in NTPC High School, this court does not find any difficulty in recognizing service of the petitioner rendered in NTPC High School for the period from 7th April, 1993, to 4th July, 2002, for the purpose of settling pensionary dues of the petitioner.”

The High Court rejected the objections raised by the District Inspector of Schools, holding that the approval memo and the Division Bench’s judgment provided sufficient legal basis for including the petitioner’s NTPC High School tenure in the computation of pensionary benefits. It directed the State respondents, including the District Inspector of Schools, to settle the petitioner’s retiral dues, including pension, by considering his service at NTPC High School.

The Court ordered that the Pension Payment Order (PPO) be issued within eight weeks from the date of communication of the judgment, and the retiral benefits be released within four weeks thereafter. It also directed that all objections raised by the District Inspector of Schools on January 29, 2024, be set aside.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and urgent certified copies of the judgment were permitted to be issued upon usual undertakings.

Case Title: Milan Mukhopadhyay @ Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 28603 of 2024
Bench: Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya

[View/Download order]