Calcutta HC Dismisses School and DI Review, Orders Retiral Benefits for Retired Head Master Within Eight Weeks
Justice Aniruddha Roy dismissed two review applications by a school and district inspector who had allowed a writ petition to be decided ex parte, directing full pension and retiral benefit release within eight weeks.
The High Court at Calcutta on July 24, 2026 dismissed two review applications filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Barrackpore, and the Shyamnagar Kanti Chandra High School against an earlier order of February 22, 2024 that had directed release of all retiral benefits to a retired Head Master. Justice Aniruddha Roy, sitting singly, held that neither applicant had made out any ground under Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to warrant review. Both applicants had been served and had notice of the writ proceedings, yet chose not to appear and failed to file an affidavit-in-opposition. Having caused the ex parte disposal through their own default, they could not claim that documents not placed on record constituted a ground for review. The court directed payment of all retiral benefits — including pension, provident fund and gratuity — within eight weeks, while expressly leaving pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings unaffected.
The Writ Petition and the Order Under Review
Alok Kumar Mallick had served as Head Master of the Shyamnagar Kanti Chandra High School, District North 24 Parganas, since 1987. He retired on October 31, 2019. Prior to retirement, on April 22, 2019, he had submitted all documents for preparation of his Pension Payment Order. The school, through its Head Master, submitted the final pension file before the jurisdictional District Inspector of Schools on June 3, 2019. Papers for withdrawal of his Provident Fund were submitted on September 6, 2019 before the Assistant Inspector of Schools, with the endorsement of the then Managing Committee President, Arun Guha. On November 7, 2019, the necessary Pension Payment Order was issued in his favour.
Despite the Pension Payment Order being in place, Mallick did not receive his retiral benefits after retirement — pension, provident fund and gratuity were all withheld, except provident fund. He had served the school for about 32 years. He filed writ petition WPA 22484 of 2019 before the Calcutta High Court seeking release of these dues.
When the writ petition came up for final hearing, neither the school authority nor the State was represented. No affidavit-in-opposition had been filed and placed on record, although a copy of the affidavit served on the writ petitioner contained a charge sheet dated April 21, 2022. That charge sheet had been issued more than two and a half years after the petitioner's retirement date of October 31, 2019. The underlying complaint, dated October 1, 2019, had been lodged approximately ten days before retirement by one Tanmoy Biswas, who was then an Assistant Teacher at the school and later became Teacher-in-charge after Mallick's retirement. No disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against Mallick before retirement, and the Managing Committee had taken charge from him without objection. On those facts, and in the absence of any representation by the respondents, the writ petition was allowed by order dated February 22, 2024, directing the authorities to credit all retiral benefits to the petitioner's bank account within eight weeks of communication.
Review Applications and the Arguments Advanced
Both review applications were filed beyond the period of limitation. The delay was condoned and the applications were admitted for final consideration by an order dated July 7, 2025. The writ petitioner had meanwhile been receiving provisional pension.
Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Government Pleader for the District Inspector and the State, argued that Rule 5(3) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018 permitted the school authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings within an extended period with State Government approval. He submitted that such approval had been obtained and the disciplinary proceeding was still pending. A criminal case against the writ petitioner was also pending before the jurisdictional criminal court. He contended that all supporting records had been in the affidavit-in-opposition that was served on the petitioner but was never filed in court, and that the non-representation at the hearing was due to inadvertence and bona fide mistake. Had those materials been before the court, he argued, the outcome would have been different, and the review should accordingly be allowed.
Ms. Tapati Samanta, learned Advocate for the school authority, adopted these submissions and similarly sought recall of the February 22, 2024 order.
Why the Court Rejected the Review
Justice Roy restated the scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII of the Code. A review lies only on three grounds: discovery of new or important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced when the order was made; a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason analogous to the first two grounds. The court is not an appellate authority in review and cannot reappraise evidence or substitute an earlier view merely because a different view is possible.
The court worked through the three grounds and found none made out. On error apparent on the face of record: since no affidavit-in-opposition had been filed and the respondents were unrepresented, the materials they now wished to rely on were never before the court as part of the record. There was therefore nothing on the face of the record that could constitute an apparent error. On discovery of new material: the applicants themselves had the documents and were well aware of the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case. The non-filing and non-representation arose from their own choice, not from inability to access the material despite due diligence. On sufficient reason: the court found none. The applicants had notice of the proceedings; the matter had been listed in the cause list; they had simply allowed the writ petition to proceed ex parte.
The court drew on a line of Supreme Court decisions to reinforce these conclusions. In Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported at (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Supreme Court had made plain that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and must be strictly confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and that the power of review cannot be exercised merely because a decision is erroneous on merits. In State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, reported at (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Supreme Court reiterated that review cannot be claimed for a fresh hearing or correction of an erroneous view, and that the expression “any other sufficient reason” means a reason analogous to those specified in the rule. In S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between an erroneous decision — which is the province of an appellate court — and an error apparent on the face of the record, which alone is within review jurisdiction. And in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, reported at (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Supreme Court observed that a review is not an appeal in disguise and that the finality of a judgment is to be departed from only in circumstances of a substantial and compelling character.
Justice Roy also applied the principle that “mistake or error apparent” means an error ex facie evident from the record, not one requiring detailed enquiry or elaboration of reasoning. Reappraisal of evidence is impermissible in review. The court was clear: the applicants' own default had produced the ex parte order, and they could not convert that default into a ground for review.
Directions on Pending Proceedings
Having dismissed the review applications, the court went on to address the intersection between the retiral benefit directions and the pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The authorities had been withholding terminal benefits on the ground that disciplinary and criminal proceedings were pending. The court directly dealt with this.
The court made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending disciplinary proceeding or the criminal proceeding. The authorities remain at liberty to pursue both in accordance with law. The writ petitioner retains liberty to raise all points, including any challenge to maintainability, in those proceedings.
Critically, the court directed that the pendency of those proceedings shall not operate as a bar to the release of payment to the petitioner. It stated that pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings cannot be taken as a plea to withhold payment. If either proceeding is ultimately decided against the writ petitioner and he is found guilty, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law at that stage.
Outcome
Both review applications — RVW 100 of 2024 and RVW 298 of 2024 — were dismissed without any order as to costs. The associated interlocutory application, I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2024, stands disposed of. The directions from the February 22, 2024 order in WPA 22484 of 2019 were reiterated in full: the appropriate authority or authorities are directed to take all necessary steps in terms of the Pension Payment Order already issued in favour of the petitioner, release all retiral benefits to which he is eligible strictly in accordance with law, and credit the payment to his bank account within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.