Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition against non-receival of benefits of conversion, i.e., from Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) to General Provident Fund (GPF), despite complying with the scheme, a single-judge bench comprising of Aniruddha Roy,* J., allowed the writ petition, directing the state to grant the petitioner the benefits of the conversion scheme and issue a fresh Pension Payment Order, including arrears and interests.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a retired Assistant Teacher from Bengai Girls’ High School, District Hooghly, served for over 36 years and retired on 30-04-2009. Following District Inspector of Schools v. Abhijit Baidya, 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 13189, the petitioner was allowed to switch from CPF to GPF. The relevant notification for exercising this option was issued on 13-06-2014, with a deadline of 12-09-2014. The petitioner duly submitted the option form on18-08-2014 and returned the entire Employer’s contribution with interest on 01-09-2014. Despite compliance, the petitioner had not received the benefits of the conversion, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the petitioner, covered by District Inspector of Schools (Supra), had timely and bona fide exercised the option for conversion. The petitioner referenced an interim order indicating the petitioner had been receiving pension under the 1968 option rule due to the direction of a coordinate Bench. On the other hand, the State contended that the petitioner, having opted for Pension cum Gratuity, is not eligible for the conversion as per the notification, citing Annexure R-1 and R-3 from a report dated 07-09-2023.
Court’s Observation
The Court acknowledged the benevolent nature of the conversion policy for teachers, interpreting it liberally in favor of beneficiaries. The Court observed that the petitioner’s timely submission of the option form and the return of contributions within the stipulated timeframe demonstrated bona fide application.
Emphasizing the petitioner’s eligibility under District Inspector of Schools (Supra), the Court held that the 1985 option form, predating the conversion scheme, should not impede the petitioner’s entitlement to the scheme introduced after approximately twenty years.
Court’s Directions
The Court directed respondent 6 to prepare records and transmit them to respondent 4 for issuing a fresh Pension Payment Order under the 1981 Scheme, adhering to the 13-06-2014 notification within three weeks. The Court instructed respondent 6 to calculate and pay the entire amount with interest from 02-09-2014. Respondent 4 is given four weeks to issue the fresh Pension Payment Order and transmit it to the jurisdictional Treasury Officer, Hooghly. The Court directed the Treasury Officer to pay the arrears with interest within three weeks and continue regular pension payments as per the new order.
The Court directed that adjustments are to be made for pensionary benefits already received by the petitioner. The Court directed the school authority (respondent 8) to provide assistance and cooperation to state authorities as required.
Court’s Decision
The Court granted relief to the petitioner, ordering the implementation of the conversion scheme and directing the issuance of a fresh Pension Payment Order, including arrears and interest, in accordance with the 2014 notification. The writ petition was allowed without costs.
[Pratima Bhandari v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 15, order dated 02-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Aniruddha Roy
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Manujendra Narayan Roy and Mr. Biswarup Nandy, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Pinaki Dhole and Mr. Avishek Prasad, Counsel for the Respondent/State