31.07.2026. Item No. 14. Court No. 652 ap W.P.A. 28647 of 2023 Salil Kumar Kundu & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Anirban Mitra. ..For the petitioners. Mr. Rajen Dutta, Mrs. Sutapa Upadhyay, …For the State. 1. The petitioners are permanent employees of West Bengal Valuation Board. All of them have retired in terms of Rule 75(a) of the WBSR Part-I on attaining the age of 60 years. 2. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that in spite of being at par with the employees of other Government Departments, who duly receives pension after retirement, they have been derived thereof till now, in spite of discharging diligent duty and maintaining unblemished service record, during their service tenure. 3. Thus, the petitioners have raised grievance about violation of their constitutional rights of life and equality. 4. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appears for the petitioners and Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the State. 5. Learned Advocate for the State respondents has relied on a communication made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the 2 Member Secretary, West Bengal Valuation Board dated October 17, 2019 which states, inter alia, as follows: “Earlier, Pension Branch, Finance Department agreed in principle to introduce pension scheme for the employees of West Bengal Valuation Board subject to the condition that the Board should explore the possibility to earn of its own by way of imposing levy on the increased rates and taxes and create pension fund for this purpose initially with the support of Employer’s share of contribution together with interest accrued thereon. It was also stipulated therein that Govt. will not make any sort of financial assistance for this purpose. In response it has been clearly stated by Member Secretary, West Bengal Valuation Board vide No. 552/WBVB/1R-2/2014 dated 31.10.2018 that it is not possible to explore any possibility to earn for creation of Pension Fund. We may, therefore, regret that we are unable to agree to the proposal for introduction of Pension- cum-GPF Scheme in lieu of C.P.F. Scheme for the employees of West Bengal Valuation Board.” 6. It is informed that the contention of the letter dated October 17, 2019 is the stand of the Government. 7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and upon examination of the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the State itself has, as a matter of policy, extended pensionary benefits to employees similarly situated in other Government Departments. The petitioners, who had rendered long years of service under the West Bengal Valuation Board, have not been shown to constitute a separate class founded upon any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Mere financial considerations or the inability of the Board to generate its own pension fund, as reflected in the 3 communication dated 17th October, 2019, cannot furnish a constitutionally sustainable basis to deny pensionary benefits to one class of retired public servants, while extending the same to another similarly circumstanced class. Such differentiation, in the absence of any valid statutory foundation or rational classification, is prima facie arbitrary and offends the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. The communication dated 17th October, 2019 further discloses that the claim of the petitioners has been declined principally on the ground that the State would not extend any financial assistance for introduction of a pension scheme and that the Board was unable to create a pension fund from its own resources. Such an approach reduces the constitutional obligation of the State towards its retired employees to a matter of financial convenience. Pension is not a gratuitous payment dependent solely upon executive discretion but is a measure of socio- economic security intended to ensure a life of dignity after retirement. Once an employee has rendered faithful service under an instrumentality of the State, the denial of pension solely on the basis of financial incapacity of the employer, without examining the constitutional implications of such deprivation, cannot withstand scrutiny under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with dignity and financial security in the evening of life. 4 Executive expediency cannot override constitutional guarantees. 9. The impugned communication dated 17th October, 2019, therefore, cannot be sustained as it fails to balance the State's administrative considerations with its constitutional obligations flowing from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents, being instrumentalities of the State within the meaning of Article 12, must conform to the constitutional principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness and protection of the dignity of retired employees. A decision which perpetuates discrimination amongst similarly situated retirees and deprives them of a reasonable source of post-retiral livelihood without any constitutionally permissible justification is manifestly arbitrary and inconsistent with the constitutional vision of a welfare State. Consequently, the communication dated 17th October, 2019 cannot be treated as a legally sustainable basis for denying consideration of the petitioners' claim for pensionary benefits. 10. The aforesaid conclusion also receives support from the settled constitutional jurisprudence evolved by the Supreme Court. In D. S. Nakara versus UOI [1983 1 SCC 305], the Constitution Bench authoritatively held that pension is neither a bounty nor an act of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, but a valuable socio-economic right intended to secure dignity and economic security in 5 the post-retiral years, and that an arbitrary classification amongst pensioners is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Subsequently, in Olga Tellis VERSUS Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985 3 SCC 545], the Supreme Court expanded the sweep of Article 21 by recognising that the right to life necessarily includes the right to livelihood, for deprivation of livelihood inevitably denudes life of its meaningful content. The constitutional philosophy was further deepened in K. S. Puttaswamy versus UOI [2019 1 SCC 1], wherein the Constitution Bench reaffirmed that human dignity constitutes the core of Article 21 and that every action of the State must conform to constitutional values that preserve the autonomy and dignity of the individual. Tested on the anvil of these binding constitutional principles, the Government communication dated 17th October, 2019, which declines pensionary benefits solely on the premise of financial inability of the Board and the State's unwillingness to extend financial assistance, cannot be regarded as constitutionally sustainable. Financial constraints, however genuine, cannot legitimise an executive action which results in arbitrary discrimination amongst similarly situated retirees and deprives them of post-retiral social security essential for a life of dignity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. The respondents being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India is bound to act 6 towards upholding the constitutional rights of its employees of life and equality. 12. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondent authorities, expressed vide letter dated October 17, 2019 appears to be not in consonance with the constitutional guarantee of right to life and equality of the present petitioners. 13. Having found so, this Court is inclined to look into another communication, inter se Departments i.e. dated September 4, 2012, in which the Chairman, West Bengal Valuation Board has proposed and requested the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, for extension of Pensionary Benefits Scheme to the employees of West Bengal Valuation Board. The same has never been considered or answered by the addressee as yet. 14. It is found proper to direct the appropriate authority dated September 4, 2012, to immediately consider the said letter of the Chairman, West Bengal Valuation Board and take a decision thereof afresh, independent of the constitutionally unsustainable views and opinion expressed in the letter dated October 17, 2019, in accordance with law. 15. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2, the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, to consider and dispose of the representation of the Chairman, West Bengal Valuation Board dated September 4, 2012, as expeditiously as possible and 7 not beyond a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. In doing so, the respondent no.2 shall consider the documents from the respective Departments, if necessary and pass a reasoned order within a period stipulated as above, if not the said respondent finds the proposal of the Chairman, West Bengal Valuation Board in the letter dated September 4, 2012 worth immediate acceptance and execution. 16. Needless is to say that in case he accepts the proposal of the Chairman, West Bengal Valuation Board made in the letter dated September 4, 2012, all subsequent appropriate steps should be taken immediately thereafter to accord pensionary benefits to the present petitioners being the erstwhile employees of West Bengal Valuation Board including the arrears. 17. With the observations and directions as above, the present writ petition is disposed of. 18. There will be no order as to costs. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, on compliance of all necessary formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)