Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Gaurang Kanth directed the Respondent Municipality and the Director, Local Bodies, to expeditiously complete the re-designation of 148 retired Class IV employees and disburse their pending pension and retiral dues. The Court instructed the Municipality to submit all necessary documentation within one week and ordered the Director, Local Bodies, to process the same and effect the re-designation within two weeks thereafter. If sanctioned posts were insufficient, the Municipality was directed to create supernumerary posts to accommodate all concerned employees. The Court concluded that the disbursal of retiral dues must follow within four weeks post re-designation. The directive came in response to the prolonged delay in releasing pension to the petitioner and others due to administrative lapses and technical issues arising from the transition to a digital system. Justice Gaurang Kanth held that such delays caused hardship to retired employees and were inconsistent with principles of justice and good governance.

The petitioner, a retired Class IV employee of the Respondent Municipality, had been engaged as a casual worker on January 1, 1991. Subsequently, the Finance and Establishment Standing Committee of the Municipality resolved on April 11, 1991, to absorb the petitioner and others in vacant sanctioned posts. This resolution was ratified by the Board of Councillors on April 20, 1991. As a result, the petitioner’s services were formally confirmed on March 1, 1993, in the capacity of a "Coolie."

Also Read: System Failed Her | Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Protect Victim’s Future | Says ‘Law, Society And Family Did Enough Damage’ | Not A Precedent

A service book was prepared for the petitioner, and she was granted all service-related benefits, including those under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme. Prior to her superannuation, a memorandum dated January 6, 2023, from the Chairman of the Respondent Municipality, informed her of her retirement effective November 30, 2023. The memorandum directed her to submit her appointment letter, joining report, educational qualifications, and birth certificate.

In response, through a letter dated January 19, 2023, the petitioner informed the Chairman that she did not possess these documents. She explained that no appointment letter had been issued, the joining report remained in the custody of the Municipality, and no educational qualifications were required for the post. Being illiterate and a member of the Harijan community, she also lacked a birth certificate.

The petitioner was superannuated on November 30, 2023, with a final monthly salary of Rs. 40,971. However, no pension was sanctioned due to a mismatch in the designation of the post she held. She submitted a representation dated January 23, 2025, seeking release of her pension and retiral dues. Having received no response, she approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner alleged that others similarly placed had received retiral dues before the implementation of the integrated Online Salary Management System (i-OSMS). However, post-transition, the same benefits were denied to her and others, resulting in financial hardship.

The Respondent Municipality (Respondents Nos. 2 to 9) supported the petitioner’s claims in their affidavit. They confirmed her appointment as a Coolie on May 2, 1991, which was duly approved by the competent authority. She served continuously until retirement on October 31, 2023, receiving monthly wages. Yet, her pension and retiral benefits remained unreleased.

The affidavit outlined the introduction of the i-OSMS system in 2017 and the requirement for electronic pension submissions from September 15, 2021. The system did not accept records of employees not posted against sanctioned positions.

To address this, the Municipality submitted a proposal on July 23, 2019, to re-designate 148 employees, including the petitioner, from roles such as Coolie, Dome, Methor, Trailorman, and Jharuyali to Conservancy Workers. The Director, Local Bodies, raised queries on May 15, 2024, and the Municipality responded on June 7, 2024, and July 23, 2024. Despite furnishing all required information, no action was taken.

Meanwhile, eight similarly situated employees approached the High Court, and based on its orders, six were re-designated, and their dues were disbursed. The Municipality, on August 29, 2024, requested the Director to extend similar treatment to the remaining employees. No response was received.

Respondent No. 11, the Director, Local Bodies, filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was in an unsanctioned post and, therefore, categorized as an "unapproved employee" in the i-OSMS portal. The re-designation proposal lacked details about the "man in position" status of Group-D employees. Without this, it was not feasible to verify vacancy availability for the Conservancy Worker post.

The affidavit noted that the Chairman of the Municipality is the Pension Sanctioning and Payment Authority, while the Directorate is tasked with verifying service and pay records. Thus, final responsibility lay with the Respondent Municipality, supported by oversight from the Director.

Justice Gaurang Kanth began by stating, "this Court is constrained to express its serious concern over the current state of affairs wherein the integration of updated digital infrastructure... has instead resulted in transitional inefficiencies." He recorded that Class IV employees were subjected to "undue hardship and delay in receiving their rightful dues." The Court noted that "Technology is a tool for advancement and should serve as a means to ease the burden of governance upon the citizenry."

He further stated, "This Court fails to comprehend how a system designed for public welfare can operate in a manner so contrary to its intended objective." Stating the legal nature of pensions, he held that "pension is not an act of charity, but a legally enforceable right accrued by employees."

The Court recorded that the petitioner served over 32 years of unblemished service and that pension benefits were granted to similarly situated Coolies prior to the i-OSMS implementation. Justice Kanth observed, "various instrumentalities of the State are engaged in shifting blame onto one another," resulting in retired employees being "left without access to their lawful retiral dues."

The Court further stated, "Such conduct not only undermines the rule of law but also reflects a disturbing disregard for the rights and dignity of retired public servants." It noted the admitted facts: appointment with approval, continuous employment for 30-35 years, and receipt of benefits equivalent to permanent employees.

Despite being in posts not formally sanctioned under staffing norms, the employees were treated as regular staff. Their details could not be entered into the i-OSMS portal due to the technical requirement of sanctioned posts. Re-designation as Conservancy Workers was thus essential.

The Court observed that the impasse was due to "miscommunication between the Respondent Municipality and Respondent No. 11." The Director’s contention was that the Municipality failed to submit "man in position" data, while the Municipality maintained it had submitted all relevant documents.

Justice Kanth stated, "pension and other retiral benefits, once earned by an employee... ought not to be delayed, even by a single day." He stated that such delay "causes undue hardship to the retired employees, who depend on these dues for their sustenance."

The Court directed the Respondent Municipality to "furnish all the requisite information and documents, as sought by Respondent No. 11 in its communication dated 15.05.2024, within a period of one week from the date of pronouncement of this judgment."

It ordered that "upon receipt of the said information, Respondent No. 11 shall process the same and take appropriate steps for re-designating all the similarly situated employees, including the Petitioners, as ‘Conservancy Workers’." The re-designation process must be completed "within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the necessary information from the Respondent Municipality."

Further, the Court held that if sanctioned posts were insufficient, "the Respondent Municipality shall create supernumerary posts... to the extent necessary, for accommodating all 148 such persons."

Also Read: Kerala HC Slams Meagre Award To Orphaned Disabled Victim | Compensation Must Be ‘Just’ And Not Left To Charity Of Orphanage

It concluded that "upon completion of the re-designation process, the Respondent Municipality is directed to take immediate steps for the release of pension and other retiral dues... in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 4 weeks thereafter."

The Court added that "administrative inefficiencies or inter-departmental communications cannot be permitted to prejudice the rights of employees who have served the Respondent Municipality for decades." Reiterating the nature of pension, it stated, "The right to pension is not a bounty but a vested right earned through years of dedicated service."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. Nandini Mitra, Advocate; Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya, Advocate; Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Advocate; Mr. Saikat Koley, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Advocate; Mr. Tanmoy Chowdhury, Advocate; Mr. Pradip Kumar Mondal, Advocate; Ms. Priyanka Mukherjee, Advocate

Case Title: Satyabati Harijan vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.A. 4521 of 2025
Bench: Justice Gaurang Kanth

[Read/Download order]