Sl.19 14.09.2026 chanchal WPA 1041 of 2018 CAN 2 of 2026 Shyamal Khatua -versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Amitava Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ankita Ghosh … for the petitioner. 1. In spite of completed service, none appears for the respondents. Hence, the matter is taken up for hearing and order, in absence of the respondent authorities. 2. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has alleged about arbitrariness and illegality in the action of the respondent authorities, in not disbursing him with the salary/remuneration and other service benefits for the period from December 01, 2005 to March 31, 2016 amounting to Rs. 22,39,961/- and also for the period from April 1, 2016 to January 31, 2025, (for a period of 106 months). 3. The factual background of the case is required to be stated in a nutshell. The petitioner is one of the organizing teachers of ‘Nirbark Math Pratibandhi Siksha Niketan’ which received academic recognition with effect from October 12, 1998, as an institution for visually 2 handicapped persons. Financial approval was granted to the institution with effect from December 5, 2005. Allegedly ever since thereafter the petitioner was not paid salary and other emoluments and other service benefits by the respondent authorities, in spite of grant of financial approval by the State to the said institution. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after much turmoil and rounds of litigation before this Court, the petitioner was ultimately directed to be released with the appropriate salary and service benefits, by this Court. 5. The respondents have filed a report in Court in connection with the instant writ petition and according to the same, the District Mass Education Extension Officer, Paschim Medinipur, has sought for sanction of total amount of Rs. 22,39,961/- in order to release to the petitioner as salary for the period from December 1, 2005 to March 31, 2016. There is however no report furnished to this Court, as to whether the said sum of money is sanctioned towards said respondent or not, in order to enable the said respondent to release it to the petitioner in accordance with the Court’s order. 3 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was superannuated with effect from 31.1.2026. He said that till that period the petitioner has neither received any salary barring a few months in between, nor he has been granted any pension as yet. Therefore, in addition to the amount for the period as mentioned above, the petitioner would also be entitled for salary from April 1, 2016 to January 31, 2025. For the rest of the months, he says, that the petitioner has been granted salary. Apart from that, the petitioner is also entitled to receive pension, on the basis of his salary last drawn. 7. There is no dispute as to the facts as revealed from the records stated above, rather the report of the respondents virtually admits the entire claim of the writ petitioner. Salary and pension, particularly when lawfully earned and accrued, constitute an important facet of the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, since they provide the means of livelihood and economic security necessary for a dignified existence. While the right to receive salary or pension may be regulated by the applicable service rules and may, in appropriate cases, be subjected to lawful withholding, 4 reduction or adjustment in accordance with a prescribed procedure, the State cannot withhold such legitimate dues arbitrarily, indefinitely or without disclosing any rational and lawful basis for doing so. Pension, in particular, is not a bounty or an ex gratia payment, but a statutory and enforceable retiral entitlement arising from past service; likewise, salary for services already rendered constitutes an accrued monetary right. Any deprivation of such vested entitlements must, therefore, have the authority of law and satisfy the requirements of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, withholding of salary or pension without any lawful justification, due process or discernible reason is manifestly arbitrary and legally unsustainable, apart from causing an impermissible invasion of the employee's constitutionally protected right to livelihood and dignified existence. In the typical factual background of the present case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that withholding of salary and pension of the petitioner amonts to gross violation of his rights guaranteed under the Constitution. 5 8. Let therefore, this writ petition be disposed of with the direction upon the respondent No.2 i.e. The Director of Mass Education Extension, West Bengal, to immediate sanction the amount of salary of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. Rs. 22,39,961/- for the period from December 1, 2005 to March 31, 2016 and also the appropriate amount for the period from April 01, 2016 to January 31, 2025, all within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order. 9. Let the respondent No.3 being the District Mass Education Extension Officer, Paschim Medinipur, release the entire amount of arrears and salary to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of sanction and allotment, by an order issued by the said office. 10. The respective respondent authority i.e. respondent No.3 and 2 shall take appropriate steps for release of appropriate pension and retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of pay fixation and ascertainment of the amount of last drawn salary of the present petitioner. 6 11. With the direction as above, the instant writ petition and connected application, if any, are disposed of. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)