Shri Bijan Kumar Ganguli vs The State of West Bengal and Others

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated January 30, 2012 is seeking the following principal relief:

a) A writ in the nature of mandamus and/or like nature commanding the respondents and/or their agents to show cause as to why the retirement benefit of the petitioner will not be allowed as per benefit of State Government employees being pension, and medical faculties as per Government extra ordinary, Kolkata, Gazattee notification dated 26th June, 2002.

The petitioner was an employee of the Council of Homoeopathic Medicine, West Bengal. The Council is established under the West Bengal Homoeopathic System of Medicine Act, 1963. In exercise of power conferred by s. 44 of the Act the Council made the West Bengal System of Medicine (Conduct of Business of Council, Executive Committee and Special Committee) Regulations, 1970.

In exercise of the same power conferred by s. 44 of the Act the Council issued a notification dated February 12, 2000 (published in the Kolkata Gazette on June 26, 2002) concerning certain amendments in the regulations. One of the amendments was to sub-reg. (6) of reg. 38. By the amendment a new sub-regulation was substituted for the old sub-reg. (6).

The substituted sub-reg. (6) is quoted below:

(6) The Pay; allowances; other benefits and conditions of services of the staff of the Council shall be at par with those laid down by the State Government for the identical categories of State Government employees and their services shall be regulated by the West Bengal Service Rules.

In view of the amendment the petitioner and all the other members of the staff of the Council were paid salaries, allowances and other benefits at par with those laid down by the State Government for the identical categories of State Government employees. On reaching the age of superannuation the petitioner retired from services of the Council on December 31, 2007. It is not disputed that he was paid all benefits to which he was entitled.

In July 2010 the petitioner sent a representation to the Council requesting it to take steps for introduction of pension scheme for its employees. He informed the Counsel that the if a pension scheme was introduced, he would take benefit thereof refunding the share of the provident fund contribution of the Council that he was paid as part of his retirement benefits.

The admitted position is that no pension scheme has been introduced by the Council. From the document at p. 29 it appears that the Council approached the State Government with the proposal for introduction of a pension scheme, and that the State Government has not yet taken any decision.

Whether a pension scheme for the members of the staff of the Council will be introduced is a matter of policy. The decision, it appears, is to be taken by the State Government. Until the scheme is introduced and it is made applicable to a retired employee such as the petitioner, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot have any cause of action to move the Writ Court seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to pay him pension, etc.

The State Government is to decide the question of introduction of a pension scheme. Power under art. 226 cannot be exercised for asking the State Government to take or expedite the process of taking a policy decision such as introduction of a pension scheme. In my opinion, the WP is not maintainable. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.