Ratna Ray Vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

This application has been filed by the petitioner for disbursing the salary due to the petitioner from July, 2018. The petitioner is the Headmistress of Basudebpur High School (H. S.), Sarsuna, Kolkata - 700061.

It should be mentioned that this matter has been taken up by this court despite the ongoing cessation of work in the court in view of several rounds of mentioning by the writ petitioner appearing in person which was also done in the presence of the teacher-in-charge of the school who appeared in person. In fact an order passed by this court on 22nd May, 2019 records the presence of the teacher-in-charge and the matter was fixed today after the teacher-in-charge expressed his personal difficulty in being present in court yesterday i.e. 23rd May, 2019.

The urgency shown by the petitioner is that the petitioner is due to retire on 31st May, 2019, when the court will be closed for summer vacation.

The tracking report enclosed with the affidavit-in-service, which is kept on record, shows that most of the relevant Respondents including the President of the Managing Committee, the District Inspector (D.I.) and the State, have been served.

The petitioner appearing in person submits that an order of suspension of the petitioner as Headmistress of the school taken by a Resolution of the Managing Committee on 15th June, 2015, was set aside by an order passed by the Chairman, Appeal Committee, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Board) dated 1st December, 2017, The relevant portion of the aforesaid order by which the suspension of the petitioner was set aside, should be set out:

"For the above reasons and findings and also relying upon materials and findings I am convinced to hold that the suspension and starting of disciplinary proceeding against the appellant are all invalid and bad in law and said pro created resolution dtd. 15.6.15 is nothing but a fabricated paper created by the Secretary with the help of his henchmen bye passing the whole M.C. and same is not the resolution of the valid M.C. and so appellant is found illegally suspended and for which she is entitled to be reinstated to her post of Headmistress and she is entitled to join and resume her duties and to get all arrear pay and all benefits in her service.

It is to be mentioned that in the mean time administrator has been appointed and notice of appeal hearing was served upon administrator but on his behalf T-I-C appeared but did not file any document or paper in support of opposite party contention but only relied upon their written statement and considering this above fact it is also proved that practically the then M.C. did not act legally and bonafiedly for which M.C. had been dissolved and administrator has been appointed.

Considering of the above fact, it is also proved that the allegations as brought against Secretary Samarendra Kumar Bose by the appellant has been substantiated.

In the light of the above findings and observation of the present appeal succeeds.

Hence, ordered, that appeal be and same is allowed on contest against the opposite party M.C./Administrator.

Accordingly the order of suspension as passed against the appellant by the then so called M.C. on 15.06.2015 is declared as illegal and not binding upon the appellant.

It is also declared that actually no valid and legal meeting of the opposite party M.C. was held on 15.06.2015 and so called resolution dt.15.06.2015 as submitted by the Secretary to the Board is nothing but fictitious one.

In the above premises opposite party M.C./Administrator is/are hereby directed to reinstate. The appellant in her post of Headmistress of the school and permit her to join within seven days from the date of receipt of this order.

Further opposite party M.C./Administrator shall regularize her service treating her period of suspension that is whole period from 18.06.2015 and till the date of her resuming duty, as on duty because the appellant has/had no negligence on the part of her.

Opposite Party M.C./Administrator shall also pay and release appellants entire monthly salary since 18.06.2015 after adjusting already paid suspension allowance and pay all arrear dues and benefits what appellant is entitled to get within two months from the date of receipt of his order.

Opposite party authority shall also regularize the service book of the appellant by giving effect of her all service benefits as per this order and rule and paste a copy of this order duly attested by the opposite party authority in her service book.

Opposite party authority shall take all such steps for implementing the order within stipulated period if opposite authority fails to comply this order in that case Board authority shall take such step for implementing the order which Board may deem think fit and necessary as per provision of Sec.9(2)(3) of WBBSE (Amendment) Act, 1965 and with updated amendment.

Further D.I. of Schools (SE), Deptt. Govt. of West Bengal and also Board shall in all respect take such step also for giving proper protection and help for resuming her duty with in the stipulated period and also for releasing all her benefits and dues within short period from the date of receipt of this order along with file of the appellant duly submitted by the opposite party authority and now the Administrator."

The petitioner joined the school to resume her duties as Headmistress on 10th January, 2018, following the order of the Appeal Committee of the Board, with a request to the S. I. of Schools as well as the Administrator to release her salary from 18th June, 2015, to regularize the Service Book and the teacher-in-charge (T.I.C.) to hand over charge of school records. The teacher-in-charge thereafter filed a writ petition in this court challenging the order of the Appeal Committee (by which the petitioner's suspension had been set aside) which was dismissed by an order dated 18th January, 2018, the relevant part of which is set out below:

"Indisputably, the respondent no.7 was suspended with effect from 18th June, 2015. Prior thereto, the managing Committee of the said school had issued a charge sheet against the respondent no.7 on 15th June, 2015. The order impugned in the present writ petition is only pertaining to the issue of sustainability of the order of suspension. By the order impugned, the order of suspension has been set aside. Against such disapproval of the order of suspension, the managing committee of the said school could have preferred a writ petition. From the array of the parties in the present writ petition, it appears that the administrator has been made a party respondent. The resolution at page 121 of the writ petition upon which Mr. Bhattacharyya, has placed reliance reveals that the same was adopted prior to issuance of the impugned order. As such, there is no material on record to show that the teacher-in-charge has been authorized by the managing Committee of the said school to prefer the present writ petition. It, in fact, appears that as the disapproval of the order of suspension would tantamount to removal of the petitioner from the post of teacher-in-charge, the writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner in his individual capacity. No legally protected right of the petitioner which can be judicially enforced has been infringed warranting interference of this Court.

For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed."

The petitioner submits that on 25th January, 2018 one Srikumar Roy Chowdhury was appointed as President of the school by an order of the School Education Department with the caveat that the order will not take any effect if there is any contrary order of any court of law in the matter. On 29th January, 2018, the petitioner wrote to the Commissioner of School Education complaining of certain administrative anomalies in the school and the fact that the newly inducted Srikumar Roy Chowdhury asked the petitioner to hand over the charge of the school with immediate effect. The petitioner relied on the provisions of the Rules for Management of Sponsored Institutions (Secondary), 1972 in the said letter. On 27th January, 2018, the petitioner received a letter from the President of the school demanding an explanation for the petitioner's presence in the school premises from 10th January, 2018 and the petitioner's signing the attendance register on a daily basis. The petitioner thereafter wrote several letters to the Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as to the officer-in-charge, Sarsuna Police Station (Respondent no.9) from 13th February, 2018 to 24th April, 2018 complaining about the mis-management of the school including the police entering the school and breaking the lock of the room where the records of the school are kept along with the Local Councillor and the President. The petitioner submits that she was prevented from entering the school on 13th February, 2018 to perform her duties as Headmistress of the school, which is also part of the correspondence made to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The petitioner submits that on 12th February, 2018, when she was at the office of the D. I. in relation to preparation of the records for retirement benefits, the Managing Committee convened a meeting by which various decisions were taken including for operating the funds of the school and for constituting a "New Committee", in the absence of the petitioner who was the Headmistress of the school on that date. The petitioner relies on a Notification No. 264-Edn. (S) dated 8th March, 1972 with regard to the Rules for Management of Sponsored Institutions (Secondary), 1972 (the 1972 Rules) under which a Committee constituted must have the Head of the concerned institution, who shall also be the Secretary of the Committee under Rule 5 (vi) and Rule 8 respectively. The petitioner also submits that the quorum of seven members for the meeting under Rule 12 was not followed in the meeting convened by the Committee on 12th February, 2018. A Writ petition filed by the petitioner being W. P. 3697 (W) of 2018 for disbursement of arrears was disposed of with a direction which is set out below:

"This Court is of the view that an interim order is required to be passed with reference to the arrear salaries that are payable to Smt. Ratna Ray, the petitioner in two writ petitions namely, W. P. 3697 (W) of 2018 and W. P. 5307 (W) of 2018. Counsel on behalf of the Managing Committee, Basudevpur High School who are the writ petitioners in W. P. 4696 (W) of 2018 has fairly submitted that the papers regarding the same shall be processed and sent by the school authorities to the D. I. of Schools.

Accordingly, the President of the School, appointed by the Commission of School Education, is directed to prepare bills towards arrear salaries of the petitioner, Smt. Ratna Ray payable from 2015 onwards, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of Managing Committee and submit the same to the D. I. of Schools within a period of ten days from date.

Needless to say, the D. I. of Schools on receipt of the said papers shall process the same and make the disbursement to Smt. Ratna Ray within a period of two weeks from the receipt of papers."

The main relief sought for by the petitioner is for disbursement of her salary since according to her the relevant papers for her retirement dues have not been prepared by the school or the D. I. even though she is due to retire on 31st May, 2019.

The teacher-in-charge who appears in person submits that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner prevented the school from disbursing the petitioner's salary. The primary submission is that Mr. Anindya De has no personal knowledge of the incidents complained of since he was inducted into the school only on 22nd January, 2018.

I have heard the submissions of the petitioner and the teacher-in-charge of the school, both appearing in person.

Having seen the relevant documents, it is clear that the Managing Committee of the school, the President, the teacher-in-charge and the D. I. have paid scant regard to the orders of this court. The order of the Appeal Committee of the Board fully exonerated the petitioner of all charges made against her and found the order of suspension to be illegal and not binding upon the petitioner. The Appeal Committee in fact also found that the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 15th June, 2015, pursuant to which the petitioner was suspended, was a fictitious meeting. The Managing Committee/Administrator of the School were accordingly directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Headmistress of the school and permit her to join within seven days from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Appeal Committee on. A challenge to this order by the teacher-in-charge was dismissed on 18th January, 2018 by an order of this court.

It should be mentioned that there was no direction passed by this court or any other authority against the petitioner resuming her duties as Headmistress of the school. The letter of the President, who had been inducted to the school after i) the order of the Appeal Committee ii) the petitioner joining the school and iii) the order dismissing the writ petition of the teacher-in-charge (challenging the order of the Appeal Committee) asking for an explanation from the petitioner is therefore absolutely without basis. The conduct of the Managing Committee of the school in convening a meeting in the absence of the petitioner and constituting a committee without inducting the petitioner as the Head of the institution is prima facie contrary to the 1972 Rules. Significantly, the numerous letters written by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Police as well as the Officer-in-Charge bringing on record the break down of administration in the school went un-heeded. A letter sent to the Deputy Commissioner of police on 19th February, 2018 recording that the petitioner was prevented by the gate keeper to enter the school under the orders of the teacher-in-charge and the associate teacher-in-charge was also not acted upon by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The Managing Committee of the school together with the President and teacher-in-charge further proceeded to disregard the direction passed by this court on 28th June, 2018 by which the President was directed to prepare the bills towards arrear salaries of the petitioner from 25th onwards and submit the same to the D. I. who would then process the said bills and disburse the salary to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that she was paid her salaries till June, 2018 and has not been paid after that although she is due to retire on 31st May, 2019.

The teacher-in-charge does not have any explanation as to why the petitioner's salary has been stopped from July, 2018 except that the relevant papers for payment of her subsistence allowance till May, 2019 have been submitted to the D. I. This is categorically disputed by the petitioner who submits that she has not received any amount by way of salary or subsistence allowance from July 2018.

Having considered the sequence of events and the relevant documents, this court is inclined to give relief to the petitioner. It is significant that the Managing Committee took no steps for hearing of the writ petition challenging the order of the Appeal Committee filed in March 2018. In the absence of any order setting aside the decision of the Appeal Committee of the Board by which the petitioner was reinstated as Headmistress there is no reason for the Managing Committee or the President or the teacher-in-charge of the concerned school to prevent the petitioner from performing her duties. The order of 28th June, 2018 passed by this court has also not been complied with and it is inconceivable as to why the school will pay the salary of the petitioner only till June, 2018 and not after that. The teacher-in-charge has not been able to show any document by which this court can be of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to her salary or her subsistence allowance after June, 2018 until the date of her retirement. There is also no document explaining the failure of the D. I., being the respondent no.4, for failing to take steps to process the disbursement of the petitioner's rightful dues which was the subject matter of the direction passed by this court on 28th June, 2018.

Without going into the alleged illegalities of the meeting held by the Managing Committee on 12th February, 2018 or any of the other conduct by the concerned respondents, this court deems it appropriate to pass an order directing the respondent nos. 3, 5, 7 and 8 to immediately release the arrear salary of the petitioner together with all other dues of the petitioner within 29th May, 2019 consequent to processing all relevant papers in this regard. The respondents no.4 D. I. is directed to ensure that all relevant papers are received from the school within four days from today and the arrear salary and other dues are to be paid to the petitioner within 29th May, 2019. The relevant papers for processing the pensionary and retirement benefits of the petitioner will also be processed by the D. I. within 29th May, 2019 and the petitioner shall be given a statement of such by 28th May 2019. The concerned respondents are also directed to release all documents pertaining to the petitioner including her Service Book and other papers which are necessary for compliance of the aforesaid direction. Such documents should be released to the petitioner by 27th May, 2019. The concerned respondents shall also pay all arrear dues and service benefits which the petitioner is entitled to. The petitioner will be at liberty to enter the school for doing the needful in that regard.

The Officer-in-charge, Sarsuna Police Station and the Deputy Commissioner of Police are directed to ensure the safety of the petitioner so that no untoward incident takes place while carrying out the directions passed- by this court.

CAN 232 of 2019 is disposed of with the above directions.

List W. P. 5307 (W) of 2018, W. P. 3697 (W) of

2018 and W. P. 4696 (W) of 2018 for hearing on 24th June, 2019.