Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Md. Ashraf Ali & Ors on 5 January, 2017
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
01 05.01.2017
pg CAN 8958 of 2016
And
CAN 9028 of 2016
In
M.A.T. No.1337 of 2016
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Versus
Md. Ashraf Ali & Ors.
Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Ld. Addl. Govt. Pleader
Mr. Somnath Naskar............for the appellants
Md. Sarwar Jahan........for the writ petitioner/
respondent no. 1
Re: CAN No.8958 of 2016 And C.A.N. 9028 of 2016 C.A.N. 8958 of 2016 is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 201 days' delay in presentation of M.A.T. 1337 of 2016.
We have heard Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Md. Sarwar Jahan, learned advocate for the respondent no.1/writ petitioner.
It appears from the pleadings that because of the usual laxity in proceeding with promptitude as soon as the State was informed of the judgment and order 2 impugned, there has been delay in presentation of the appeal.
While it would be desirable that the State fixes responsibility for such belated presentation of the appeal, we are of the considered view that having regard to the issues that would arise for decision on this writ appeal, provided the delay is condoned, the prayer for condonation of delay may be allowed subject to terms. C.A.N. 8958 of 2016 stands allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,700/- by the appellants to the learned advocate on record for the respondent no.1/writ petitioner within three weeks from date.
In the event payment of costs is effected in terms of this order, the appeal shall be heard, inter alia, on the points as to whether the learned judge was right in interpreting the provisions of the relevant scheme while granting higher scale of pay to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner despite the admitted fact that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner being a Science teacher, did not have the opportunity to teach History to the students of the school where he is employed and further as to whether after disposal of the claim of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner for higher scale of pay by the District Inspector 3 of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad by order dated August 14, 1996, which was never challenged by the respondent no.1, a second writ petition would be maintainable for the relief which had been denied to him by such order.
Prima facie, we are satisfied that the order impugned ought to be stayed for a period of five weeks or until further orders, whichever is earlier. We order accordingly.
List the appeal together with C.A.N. 9028 of 2016 under the heading 'To Be Mentioned' four weeks hence.
Depending on compliance of this order for payment of costs, further directions for hearing of the appeal shall be passed.
Needless to observe, in the event of failure of the appellants to pay costs in terms of this order, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act shall stand dismissed together with the appeal and C.A.N.9028 of 2016 without reference to the Bench.
( Dipankar Datta, J. ) 4 (Sahidullah Munshi, J. )