Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated September 2, 2015 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Barrackpore (hereinafter referred to as "DI of Schools") wherein the DI of Schools had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for granting pensionary benefits due to the resignation of the petitioner on his own account. The writ petition also contains a prayer for realisation of arrears salary of a sum of Rs. 1,53,760/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty) for the period November 6, 1995 to June 25, 1999 that had been ordered to be paid by an order of this Court dated March 7, 2014.

2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows :

a) That the petitioner was appointed as Group D staff in the year 1984 and continued to work therein till the year 2011. During the year 1995 to 1999 the petitioner was absent from School due to his severe illness. By an order dated March 5, 1999 this Court had directed the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education to consider the case of the writ petitioner for regularising the absence of the petitioner. Subsequently, by an order dated November 25, 2009 the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education had approved the period of absence of the writ petitioner with full pay on medical grounds under exceptional circumstances.

b) Subsequently, the DI of Schools approved the arrear salary of Rs. 1,53,760/- as claimed by the School authority in favour of the petitioner and also indicated that the said amount would be paid to the petitioner shortly.

c) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner continued to remain in poor health and accordingly, on January 4, 2011 he wrote a letter to the Secretary of the concerned School indicating that due to "unavoidable reasons" he was not able to continue his service. He accordingly, requested that his resignation may be accepted from that date. Following such letter the Managing Committee of the concerned School took a resolution on January 12, 2011 accepting the said resignation of the petitioner indicating further that his final due payments and other retirement benefits would be paid subsequent to preparation of the supporting documents. The School authorities thereafter on January 18, 2011 prepared the service book of the writ petitioner and sent the same to the DI of Schools for onward processing and final disbursal of the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

d) It is to be noted that the payments were not made by the authorities and accordingly, the writ petitioner was reluctantly forced to file a writ petition in the year 2011 bearing W.P. 10277 (W) of 2011. In the said writ petition a short affidavit was filed by the respondent authorities wherein they specifically admitted to the fact that the writ petitioner was entitled to receive the arrear payments in respect of the unauthorised leave. The affidavit also indicated at paragraph 4 that the following paragraphs also deal with the issue as to whether the petitioner would be receiving pensionary benefits. However, surprisingly, the affidavit in the following paragraphs remained silent on the issue of pensionary benefits. After hearing the parties this Court passed an order dated March 7, 2014 wherein it was recorded as follows :-

" On behalf of the respondent no.3 the District Inspector of the Schools Secondary Education, an affidavit was filed. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period in question and all steps have been taken for payment of the same but the necessary steps for release of the retiral benefits will be taken only after receipt of service book from the school authority.

The learned Counsel for the School Authority submitted that no steps for sending the Service Book to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24 Parganas could have been taken because of the fact that the same was not authenticated by the writ petitioner. It is then submitted although the petitioners absence from November 6, 1995 to November 26, 1999 has been regularised but dispute is still there over the payment of his salary for 45 years. Although the petitioner claimed to have been resigned w.e.f 18th February, 2011, but record shows that he resigned from the office on 3rd January, 2011 and his resignation was accepted by the Managing Committee on 12th January, 2011. He further submitted so far as the service book is concerned, if the petitioner appears before the school authority and authenticate the same, the school authority shall at once make the service book ready and send the same to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24 Parganas. He then pointed out that preparation of the Service Book in some places, the endorsement of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24 Parganas is necessary so to speed up the matter, it would be better that those formalities be completed at the office of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas in presence of the School representative, the writ petitioner and the District Inspector of Schools (S.E), North 24 Parganas.

Now, considering the respective submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I find already the dispute relating to the arrear salary for the period from November 6, 1995 to November 26, 1999 has been resolved and shortly the petitioner is likely to receive his dues. So far as the preparation of service book is concerned the same can be sorted out in the manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the school."

3. In spite of the above order being passed the arrear salary of the writ petitioner has not been released till date. Counsel on behalf of the respondent authorities submits that there has been a lacuna with respect to the same and the petitioner is entitled to the same. Accordingly, I direct that the District Inspector of Schools(SE), North 24 Parganas, office at Barrackpore to release the above sum of Rs. 1,53,760/- along with interest from April 1, 2014 @12% within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

4. With regard to the issue of pensionary benefits, counsel on behalf of the respondent authorities submits that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any pension as provided for in the West Bengal Recognized Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981(hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) that was enclosed as Annexure-1 to the Memorandum bearing No. 136-Edn.(B) dated May 15, 1985. He submitted that Clause 7(k) deals specifically with non-entitlement of pensionary benefit in case of a resignation tendered by an employee. The said clause is provided below:

"7 Service qualifying for pension -

(k) Resignation tendered by an employee or his dismissal or removal entail forfeiture of past service - Provided that resignation of an employee for taking another appointment under any educational institution with proper permission shall not entail forfeiture of past service."

5. He further submitted that the petitioner did not resign due to any illness and the only reasons given were "unavoidable circumstances". According to him "unavoidable circumstances" disentitled him from getting any pension whatsoever.

6. Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner for receiving pension is as per Clause 8 of the above scheme that provides for voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of qualifying service. He further relied upon sub Clause (d) of Clause 9 and Clause 15 to buttress his submissions. The relevant clauses are provided below:-

"8. Subject to satisfactory service, an employee shall be entitled to pension provided that in case of (i), (iii) and (iv) below, the employee concerned has completed at least ten years of qualifying services :

(i) on attaining the age of superannuation or thereafter on the expiry of the period of approved extension, or,

(ii) on voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of qualifying services, or,

(iii) on being declared permanently incapacitated for further service by the Chief Medical Officer of the State Government in the district concerned or any Medical Officer of equivalent status authorised by the pension sanctioning authority, or,

(iv) on termination of service due to abolition of the post, or closure of the Institution concerned due to withdrawal of recognisation or other valid reasons.

9. Pension are divided into following four classes, namely:

(a) compensation pension

(b) invalid pension

(c) superannuation pension and

(d) retiring pension.

15. A retiring pension is admissible to an employee who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for 20 years or more."

Mr. Chaturvedi appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the Managing Committee was the appropriate authority to approve the voluntary retirement of the petitioner as per Memo No. 55-Edn.(B) dated February 11, 1994. Mr. Chaturvedi thereafter placed the judgment of D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 [LQ/SC/1982/209] in support of the proposition that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace dependent upon the sweet will of the employer nor is it an ex-gratia payment. The Honble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the pension is a payment for the past service rendered and cannot be withheld on the sweet will of the employer. The relevant paragraphs of the above judgment are delineated below:

"20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyones discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh.

29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison detre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon.

36. Having set out clearly the society which we propose to set up, the direction in which the State action must move, the welfare State which we propose to build up, the constitutional goal of setting up a socialist State and the assurance in the Directive Principles of State Policy especially of security in old age at least to those who have rendered useful service during their active years, it is indisputable, nor was it questioned, that pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and in furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The goals for which pension is paid themselves give a fillip and push to the policy of setting up a welfare State because by pension the socialist goal of security of cradle to grave is assured at least when it is mostly needed and least available, namely, in the fall of life."

7. Mr. Chaturvedi also relied upon paragraph 60 of the D.S. Nakara & Ors (Supra) to indicate that the Court can in cases of beneficial legislation strike down words of limitation to meet the ends of justice.

8. The next judgment relied upon by the petitioner is Smt. Bela Batabyal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P. 5644 (W) of 2007) wherein in relation to the same scheme as in the instant case, a coordinate Bench had held as follows:-

" The admitted position is that the writ petitioner had served the school for more than 27 years and had rendered qualifying service to be entitled to pensionary benefit if it was a case of voluntary retirement. In the absence of the actual letter by which the late husband of the petitioner indicated his inability to continue with his work, one would have to come to a finding on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The copies of the documents on which reliance has been placed by the respondents to contend that the erstwhile headmaster of the school had actually resigned from service does not inspire confidence of this Court. The resolution in question is not in original, but photocopy of the same has been annexed to the affidavit of the Director of School Education. The same does not contain the name of the headmaster. The Secretary of the managing committee of the school himself has taken a contrary stand. According to him, it was a case of voluntary retirement. The petitioners own service record, the only document which was produced in original records that it was a case of voluntary retirement. So far as the last pay certificate of the petitioner is concerned, the reason for leaving the school was not recorded by the petitioner, and it is not clear on what basis "resignation" was indicated as reason.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that it would be reasonable to infer and conclude that a person who serves an institution for more than 27 years and has to discontinue his employment because of illness would ordinary have opted of premature retirement as that would have entitled him to pensionary benefits in terms of the applicable Rules. The service record of the deceased husband of the petitioner appears to give the correct picture in this regard.

In these circumstances, I choose to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to treat the case of the deceased husband of the petitioner as a case of premature voluntary retirement. The pension papers of the petitioner shall be prepared and pension shall be granted to him from the date the petitioner had made application for pension, which is 4th April, 2006."

9. In another coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Sri. Swapan Kumar Mallick v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. No. 22228 (W) of 2013) on detailed examination of the Supreme Court judgments, the Court held as follows:-

"7. The ratio of the aforesaid decisions clearly covers the petitioners case beyond any doubt. It is undisputed that he had put in 36 years of service, which is far in excess of the qualifying period of 20 years. It is again undisputed that no departmental proceedings against him were pending when he was released, nor any such penalty had been imposed upon him, as might have debarred him from claiming the pensionary benefit. On the other hand the petitioners own letter tendering his "resignation" itself mentioned that he was unable to continue in service on account of "mental depression". The letter was accepted on behalf of the respondent Bank. In the given circumstances considering that the petitioner was admittedly in a state of "mental depression", he should not be penalized for simply having used the word resignation instead of retirement in his letter seeking his release from the service, as undoubtedly he was otherwise entitled to get the all the admissible benefits of retirement, including Pension."

10. He further relied upon an unreported judgment in Shankar Pushkarna v. Union of India (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5316/2004) wherein the Rajasthan High Court was examining a similar issue of resignation and the impact of the same on the pensionary benefits. The relevant portion is delineated below :-

" The stand of the respondent Bank that resignation cannot be equated with voluntary retirement has no force of law; more so, a legal question arose in this case that whether any penal provision can be incorporated in the welfare legislation by the Bank and, of course, it cannot be done because under Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations the respondents are treating resignation as penal in character. It is also obvious from the reply filed in this case by the respondent Bank in which, vide para 24, it is contended by the Bank that it is absolutely wrong to contend that Regulation 22 of the Regulations is penal in character; but, in fact, it is penal in character because the word "resignation" can be treated to a disqualification for the pensionary benefit if those employees who rendered lesser service than the qualifying service of 20 years but it cannot be used for those employees who rendered more than 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, the word "resignation" construed by the respondents in the case of the petitioner for disqualifying him for pensionary benefit has no rationale or constitutional validity. More so, while considering the case of the petitioner under Regulation 22(1), treating the petitioners application as resignation for denial of the pensionary benefit is totally irrational and unwarranted because such resignation tendered voluntarily after completion of more than 22 years of service cannot be construed to mean resignation occurring in regulation 22(1) of the Regulations which necessarily connotes resignation from service prior to completion of qualifying service disentitling a person from the retrial benefits. Even otherwise also, completion of qualifying service would by itself entitle a person for the pensionary benefit and, therefore, in that case, technical meaning cannot be construed so as to divest the petitioner from the entitlement that accrued to him after having completed more than qualifying service in the Bank. The intention of the petitioner can also be gathered from the tenor of the application that, in fact, he intended to seek voluntary retirement on personal grounds. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny the pensionary benefit to the petitioner who had rendered more than 22 years of service for which the benefit of pension is applicable and admissible to the petitioner."

11. Upon examination of the aforesaid judgments cited by the petitioner, there is no room for doubt as to what is the law in cases as in the present writ petition. The writ petitioner having served for a period of 26 years is definitely entitled to his pensionary benefits unless any disciplinary action is pending against him. The fact that he resigned for "unavoidable circumstances" cannot take away from the undisputed fact that he was in poor health condition and resigned for the same reason. One cannot expect a Group D staff to understand the nuances of the English language. For him retirement and resignation would mean one and the same thing. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the writ petitioner had not carried out his duties properly or that he was subjected to any disciplinary proceeding. Simpliciter relying upon Clause 7(k) and rejecting the pensionary benefit of the writ petitioner clearly goes against the letter and spirit of the law. The ratio that emerges from the above cited High Court judgments is palpably lucid, and therefore, the pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner cannot be denied.

12. In the present case, the petitioner is also covered under said Clause (ii) of Clause 8 of the Rules as the resignation tendered by him amounted to a voluntary retirement after completing twenty years of qualifying services. Furthermore, Clause 15 of the Rules states that a retiring pension is admissible to an employee who is committed to retire after completing qualifying service for twenty years or more. One has to keep in mind the Supreme Court judgment in D.S. Nakara (supra) wherein it has clearly been held that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace. The Rules relating to grant of pension deal with compensation for loyal service rendered in the past and is an allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service. Moreover, it is to be noted that a beneficial legislation has to be read keeping in mind objects of the statute and mere technicalities should not defeat the very purpose of the said beneficial legislation.

13. In the present case, denial of the rights of the petitioner by the authorities on the technical ground that he resigned as per Rule 7(k) is totally irrational and unwarranted as the said resignation was tendered voluntarily after completion of more than 26 years in service. As held by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shankar Pushkarna (supra) that even otherwise also, completion of qualifying service would by itself entitle a person for the pensionary benefit and, therefore, in that case, technical meanings cannot be construed so as to divest the petitioner from the entitlement that accrued to him after having completed more than qualifying service.

14. It is also to be noted that the respondent authorities had submitted before this Court in an earlier writ petition that pensionary dues would be paid to the writ petitioner upon the service book being given to the District Inspector of Schools (SE). The stand subsequently taken by the DI of Schools is contrary to the submissions made before this High Court and cannot be allowed to stand. The respondent authorities cannot be allowed to play hot and cold at the same time.

15. As recorded above, legally, the writ petitioner is entitled to receive his pensionary benefits and accordingly, I direct the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas to release the arrear of the pensionary benefits along with interest @ 8% within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The regular pensionary benefit shall also commence from the month of October, 2018.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

17. Since no affidavits have been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.

18. All parties to act on the website copy of this order. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on the usual undertaking.