The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Bansi Badan Kole & Anr. (29 July 2025)

Court Details

• Court: High Court at Calcutta
• Bench: Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra & Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty
• Case No.: MAT 665 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 & 2 of 2025
• Date of Judgment: 29th July 2025
• Appellants: The State of West Bengal & Ors.
• Respondents: Bansi Badan Kole & Anr.

Background of the Case

The appeal was filed by the State of West Bengal and its authorities challenging the order dated 5th August 2024 passed by a Single Judge in WPA 10763 of 2023.

The respondent, Bansi Badan Kole, had filed a writ petition against the Government’s refusal (by order dated 18th April 2012) to condone the deficiency in his qualifying service, thereby denying him pension benefits. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, held that he had served less than 10 years, making him ineligible under the West Bengal Recognised Non-Government Educational Institutions Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme (Pension Scheme).

Appellants’ Arguments (State of West Bengal)

• The shortage of Bansi’s qualifying service was more than 3 years; thus, condonation was not permissible.
• By accepting approval of his service only from 8th June 2005 till his retirement on 6th October 2011, Bansi had waived his right to claim condonation.
• The authority approached in appeal (Appellant No. 4) was not competent to condone service deficiency.

Respondent’s Arguments (Bansi Badan Kole)

• Bansi’s name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange in 1986-87 against vacancies for Assistant Teacher, but due to prolonged litigation, his appointment was delayed until 2005.
• The delay was due to laches on the part of the State, and he should not suffer for the government’s inaction.
• Pension is a matter of right—a retirement benefit akin to property, which cannot be denied solely on technical grounds.
• Restricting condonation would lead to unjust discrimination.

Court’s Observations

• Bansi’s approval was delayed not due to his fault but because of prolonged litigation and delayed decision-making by authorities.
• Citing Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648], the Court noted that pension denial created a “continuing wrong”, causing continuous injury.
• Restrictive application of condonation provisions would defeat the beneficent object of the Pension Scheme.
• Pension rights do not disturb the rights of third parties; hence, condonation must be granted.

Court’s Decision

• The Court upheld the order of the Single Judge, granting Bansi notional benefits by treating him as having completed 10 years of qualifying service.
• Directed the Principal Secretary, School Education Department to condone the deficiency and proceed with pension disbursement.
• The appellants were instructed to complete all follow-up steps and ensure pension release.
• The time limit for compliance was extended by four months.
• No order as to costs.

Final Order

The appeal and stay applications were disposed of with modification, directing immediate processing of Bansi’s pension benefits.