14.08.2026 Court No.13 Item No.9 AP MAT 1469 of 2025 With CAN 2 of 2025 The State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs. Dr. Sanmoy Kumar Patra and Ors. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, A.G.P. Ms. Mary Datta Ms. Aparajita Mitra … For the State/Appellants. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee … For the Respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner. Mr. Kamalesh Jha Ms. Lina Majumder … For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3/BCKV. 1. The appeal by the State is directed against a judgement and/or order dated 16th May, 2025 passed by the Single Bench of this Court. By the said judgement, the Single Bench was pleased to direct the State to release all retiral benefits to the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 including pension both current and arrears, gratuity and leave encashment in terms of the pension order dated 19th February, 2024 issued by the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as “the BCKV”). 2. The writ petition was occasioned at the instance of the private respondent No.1 since the State objected to the issuance of the aforesaid pension order by the BCKV on two fold grounds. Firstly that the appointment of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 initially was only in respect of a project called All India Coordinated 2 Research Project (“AICRP”). Secondly that no prior approval of the State was obtained in terms of Section 33A of the BCKV Act, 1974. 3. The AICRPs are implemented under the aegis of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (“ICAR”) under the Ministry of Agriculture of the Central Government. The ICAR implements various projects across the country for the benefit and promotion of better agriculture in all States in the country. The Central Government contributes 75% of the cost of the project and the State contributes to the extent of 25%. Therefore, the projects are vital and necessary for the developmental growth of agriculture in the various States and, in fact, benefit the State concerned. 4. The aforesaid AICRP is implemented through Universities, constituted especially for agricultural purposes across the country. The BCKV is one such university through which the AICRP has been implemented since from the early 1980s and continues to be so implemented as on date. 5. The AICRP requires qualified personnel in both academic research and implementation. The choice of an agricultural university to implement such an AICRP is, therefore, natural and obvious. 6. Sometime in September 1991, pursuant to a recruitment process advertised by the BCKV, albeit for the purpose of implementing the AICRP, the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 was recruited as a 3 temporary whole time Lecturer (Research) attached to the Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science Department of the BCKV with a regular pay scale and all service benefits available to a permanent employee. It was, however, stipulated in the letter of engagement that the appointment was purely temporary and could be terminated with a month’s notice. 7. The report of the appellant/State filed before the Single Bench in the form of an affidavit indicates that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was appointed against a sanctioned but vacant post of Lecturer (Research) for implementation of the AICRP in respect of the drainage and water management at Barachauka, Medinipur under the Directorate of Research of the BCKV. He was later nominated to the Board of Studies of the said Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science. 8. Although the writ petitioner’s appointment was temporary in nature, he was extended the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 18th February, 1992, pursuant to the decision taken at the meeting of the Executive Council of the BCKV held on 8th May, 1993. 9. It further transpires from the aforesaid report of the State that when the AICRP on Agricultural Drainage was terminated, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was redeployed on 5th August, 2002 to the Department of Biotechnology Instrumentation & Environmental 4 Science until further orders. He was asked to continue as member of the BOS of the Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science Department. 10. On 3rd September, 2004, the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 was promoted to the post of Reader and was appointed to a sanctioned and vacant post of Reader at RRS, NARP, Jhargram under the same Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science Department. 11. Thereafter, on 3rd July, 2006 he was redeployed as Reader against a sanctioned vacancy in the RRS, NARP, NAZ Gayeshpur and placed in-charge of implementing the AICRP on water management thereat. On 4th November, 2009 he was further promoted as Professor with effect from 27th July, 2007. He was placed in the same project against a sanctioned and vacant post of Professor at Gayeshpur, Nadia for implementation of the AICRP. He continued in the rank of Professor until he superannuated from the BCKV with effect from 31st January, 2021. Upon his retirement, the BCKV issued the Pension Order dated 19th February, 2024. No pension was, however, paid to the writ petitioner in view of an objection by the State. 12. The BCKV, which was a party respondent in the instant proceedings and before the Single Bench has supported the case of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 in its entirety. 13. The Single Bench found that the infraction of Section 33A of the BCKV Act, 1974 resulting from the 5 failure to seek the prior approval of the State would not disentitle the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 to pension. This was in view of Government Order No.85 dated 31st January, 2000 issued by the Higher Education Department. The said Government Order defines continuous service as that rendered by an employee in an approved whole time post in any State Government establishment, college affiliated to and a State aided university, or research institute of repute under the State of West Bengal. The BCKV is specifically mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order. 14. This Court is in complete agreement with the finding of the Single Bench that notwithstanding the fact that prior sanction of the State was not obtained in terms of Section 33A of the BCKV statute, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 came to be continuously engaged by the BCKV in vacant, and regular and sanctioned posts in the Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science Department of the University for about 30 years. 15. In the course of his service, the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 was allowed the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme and promoted from the post of Lecturer to Reader and from the post of Reader to Professor during his long tenure of service of the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1. 6 16. Sometime in 2015 the Education Department of the State had issued a communication to the BCKV requiring it to submit a utilization certificate for the funds released towards salaries and pensions. 17. It transpires that, prior thereto, on 25th September, 2014, the Finance Department had deputed an official from the State’s Directorate of Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity (“DPPG”), to the BCKV to audit and settle all pension cases of both teaching and non-teaching staff in the BCKV. Several persons engaged under the AICRP and similarly situated to the writ petitioner/respondent No.1, have been receiving pensions from the BCKV, including persons who retired before from the years 2014 till 2019. No objection was raised by the auditors of the DPPG. 18. Section 33A (supra) opens with a non-obstante clause, relying on which the State argues that its objection to the grant of pension disentitles the petitioner from it. The executive order rendering the petitioner eligible for pension is overridden by Section 33A. 19. Significantly, Section 33A does not specify the legal provision which it seeks to override. Thus, following Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala, reported in (2009) 4 SCC 94, the non-obstante clause under Section 33A should be strictly construed in light of the mischief that it seeks to override. In Central Bank of India(supra), it was held as follows:- 7 105…….. the non obstante clause is no doubt a very potent clause intended to exclude every consideration arising from other provisions of the same statute or other statute but ‘for that reason alone we must determine the scope’ of that provision strictly. When the section containing the said clause does not refer to any particular provisions which it intends to override but refers to the provisions of the statute generally, it is not permissible to hold that it excludes the whole Act and stands all alone by itself. ‘A search has, therefore, to be made with a view to determining which provision answers the description and which does not.’ ” [Ed.: As observed in A.G. Varadarajulu v. State of T.N., (1998) 4 SCC 231, p. 236, para 16.] Emphasis Applied 20. Section 33A prohibits the University or College from creating/bringing into existence any new post or making a fresh appointment to an unsanctioned post without the prior approval of the State Government. This power of ‘creation’ is vested in the University under Section 7 of the Act of 1974. Sec. 33A(supra), therefore, seeks to control the said power of the University under Sec. 7(supra), which is set out below:- Sec. 7 Powers of the University. - The University shall have the following powers, namely vi. to create and institute Professorships, Readerships, Lectureships, and such posts including posts of officers as may be necessary for the establishment of the University Colleges, University Departments, Institution, Libraries, Laboratories and Museums ; 21. The petitioner was always appointed against sanctioned and vacant posts. The University, thus, did 8 not separately create any post for him. The posts, in which the petitioner worked, did not, therefore, arise from Sec. 7(supra). Consequently, Sec. 33A (supra) does not apply to the petitioner’s post or to the retirement benefits accruing therefrom. 22. The existence of a sanctioned and vacant post presupposes that the State Government is ready to bear the financial liability upon appointment thereto since it has itself sanctioned the post. Sec. 33A seeks to save the State from knee-jerk financial liability. 23. The State has sanctioned salary to the petitioner, drawn by a regular and permanent employee till his superannuation. It increased the salary upon career advancement. Grant of pension, therefore, is an inevitable retirement benefit to the petitioner by virtue of being in continuous service in terms of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7089-7090/2020 titled as The State of Odisha & Ors. Etc. v. Niranjan Sahoo by judgement dated FEBRUARY 04th, 2025, wherein it was held as follows:- 12……. Pension is not an automatic entitlement but is subject to the completion of minimum qualifying service under the applicable rules….. 24. The injunction under Article14 of the Constitution of India stands violated, as do the assurance of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution, promising ‘pay parity’ between two equals when the State refuses pension to a 9 similar situated employee. (See Para no. 39 of Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, reported in 2026 INSC 612). 25. Significantly, the Bhikhani Devi decision (supra) held that a temporary government employee is entitled to a pension when his duty status is akin to that of a regular and permanent employee. The State cannot accept a provision, that enables the extraction of services from its employees, while rejecting the one, that serves the employees after retirement. Para nos. 38, 72, 73, and 74 of Bhikhani Devi decision (supra) are set out below:- 38…………the above decisions of this Court establish a consistent judicial approach that long-serving employees, whether casual or temporary, particularly those who have been conferred a recognised status and extended benefits akin to regular employees, cannot be denied corresponding benefits including social security and pensionary benefits. The emphasis must be on ensuring that the State does not retain such employees in a precarious condition while extracting services identical to those performed by regular employees. 72. ………the statutory framework governing temporary Government employees itself accepts and acknowledges entitlement of pensionary benefits and that the same are not confined only to regular permanent employees but are also available to temporary Government servants upon completion of the prescribed 10 qualifying service. The CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 thus constitute the statutory source recognising pensionary entitlement of temporary employees who have rendered specified and continuous service. 73………The continued reliance by the Respondents upon the original mode of engagement, while simultaneously extending pay parity, increments, GPF facilities, leave benefits and other service entitlements akin to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, would amount to selectively accepting one part of the Scheme while disregarding the other…………Once parity in service benefits with temporary Group ‘D’ employees is consciously extended under the Scheme, pensionary benefits flowing under Rule 10(1-B) of the Rules of 1965 cannot be selectively denied by ignoring or overlooking the statutory right 74. The argument founded upon financial burden is equally untenable. Pension is not a matter of grace dependent upon the financial convenience of the employer, but a deferred wage earned through long years of service. Emphasis Supplied 26. The claim of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 towards pension is not solitary. At least 50 other employees in the BCKV engaged under the AICRP on the same lines as the petitioner are receiving pensions after superannuation. The engagement, career and service of the said 50 employees is similar and 11 completely akin to the case of the writ petitioner/respondent. They were all engaged as whole time temporary employees without prior sanction of the State under Section 33A of the statute of the BCKV. Their pensions has been approved and is being paid by the BCKV before and after the audit by the officials of the State/DPPG. Refusal to pay pension to the petitioner while granting it to the other similarly situated employees defies ‘administrative consistency and certainty’, hence is manifestly arbitrary. 27. This Court is unable to agree with the views expressed by another Single Bench in a judgement dated 5th May, 2026 passed in WPA 2205 of 2024 (Dr. Ashis Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.). This Court finds that the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 was at all material times in a post that was perennial in the nature with the BCKV and hence he received normal pay scale benefits and promotions etc as available to a permanent employee of the BCKV. To deny the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 pension, would attract the rigors of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 28. The State, as much as the BCKV, has benefited from the service rendered by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 under the aforesaid AICRP as the BCKV. The application of Rule 33A to deny pension to the petitioner would be arbitrary and illegal. By reason of the audit approvals granted in respect of 12 pensions to the other 50 odd persons engaged to implement the AICRP at BCKV. There is, therefore, deemed consent from the State under Section 33A of the Act of 1974. 29. The writ petitioner/respondent No.1 is, therefore, entitled to pension as available to a full time permanent employee of the BCKV. Alternatively, the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 would be entitled to pension in terms of the Government Order dated 31st January, 2000 referred to hereinabove as found by the Single Bench. 30. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the impugned order directing payment of pension and all arrears thereof and terminal benefits including the gratuity, leave encashment etc. together with interest, calls for absolutely no interference whatsoever. 31. It is ordered that the arrears of pension, gratuity and all other retirement benefits together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition be released to the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 positively by the State through the BCKV within a period of one month from date. The current pension shall be payable immediately. 32. In view of the above MAT 1469 of 2025 fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, CAN 2 of 2025 is also disposed of. 33. There shall be no order as to costs. 13 34. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)