Unnecessary Litigation At Cost To Public Exchequer Should Be Avoided: Calcutta High Court Criticises Aided Rabindra Bharati University

In a scathing verdict on the state-aided Rabindra Bharati University, the Calcutta High Court has expressed dismay and distress over the University’s insistence on engaging in ‘unnecessary’ litigation even though a Division-bench had warned them against doing so.

A single-bench of Justice Kaushik Chanda observed:

This Court is surprised that a State-aided university, at the cost of public exchequer, has engaged in extravagant litigations seemingly without a productive purpose. Despite being cautioned by the Division Bench of this Court, the learned advocate representing the university seems to have refused to internalise the lessons. The learned advocate for the university was allowed to place his case for nearly a full day. His submission has been followed by a 38 (thirty-eight) page written notes of argument…this Court is surprised that a learned advocate of this Court, despite being cautioned by the Division Bench refuses to learn any lesson and fails to discharge his obligation to assist the Court in arriving at a right decision.

These observations came in a writ petition preferred by an ‘Accompanist’ teacher who was hired in the University’s Vocal music department, and had challenged a notice of superannuation by the University asking him to retire upon attaining 60 years.

It was contended by the petitioner that he was entitled to benefits under the State’s scheme which had extended the age of superannuation of teaching staff in all universities to 65 years in 2019.

Petitioner’s advocate argued that the petitioner would fall within the definition of ‘teacher’ at the university, within the relevant Rules, as well as pursuant to the decision of a single-judge of the High Court, which was subsequently affirmed by a Division bench and thereafter by the Supreme Court.

Petitioners pointed out that the University had unsuccessfully pursued multiple litigations pertaining to whether accompanist teachers were entitled to enhanced age of superannuation, and that they had allowed another accompanist to continue till 65 years of age.

Respondents argued that the clause incorporating ‘accompanist’ within the scope of ‘teacher’ was colourable legislation and the State had no competence to make such a law, while the UGC ‘minimum requirements for teachers’ itself did not recognise accompanists as teachers.

Respondents argued that the earlier decisions of the Court on the same issue had been passed on the basis of false submissions and due to withholding of documents by the relevant writ petitioners at the time.

In dismissing the arguments of the respondents, the Court held that the petitioner did not claim equal pay-scale to university teachers under the UGC guidelines, but only prayed for an extension in retirement age in accordance with State notifications.

In summing up the multiplicity of litigations filed by the University on the issue of accompanists being recognised as teachers, the Court noted: The University did not comply with [HC division bench] order and filed a SLP before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on December 10, 2021. The university then filed a review application, which was again dismissed by the SC on February 15, 2022. It then filed a Curative Petition before the SC which met the same fate on January 19, 2023. The university refused to comply on the plea that the SC dismissed the SLP in limine without entering into the merit of the case. Ultimately, with the intervention of the learned AG, the State took the responsibility to make payment to the petitioner directly on account of arrear of salary emoluments as admissible.

In issuing a set of directives, recognising the petitioner’s retirement age as 65, and directing the University to release his salary, along with making an announcement that all similarly placed accompanists would have their retirement ages enhanced to 65, the Court disposed of the writ petition.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 291

Case: Partha Ghosh -Versus- The State Of West Bengal And Others

Case No: WPA 22027 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order