Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ct-32 ( Uday Kumar Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors. ) on 30 July, 2013
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
(40) 30.07.2013 W. P. No. 12647 (W) of 2002
ah
Ct-32 ( Uday Kumar Mondal -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. )
Mr. Tapan Chakrabarty
... for the petitioner.
Mr. K. M. Hossain ... for the State-respdts.
On march 31, 1999 the petitioner was issued an
appointment letter to act as a Panchayat Assistant for
performing and regulating the Birth and Death
Registration Unit and for other works of Mangalpura
Gram Panchayat in the District of Malda. The petitioner
joined the said post on April 05, 1999.
The case of the petitioner is that he had been
working as a Panchayat Sahayak since April 1999
without any break. The Pradhan of the Gram
Panchayat requested the Block Development Officer of
Habibpur Block to regularise the service of the
petitioner. His grievance is that till date his
appointment is not been regularised. Since the
appointment has not being regularised, he is also not
getting his salary which is attached to the concerned
post.
The petitioner relies on a notification dated
September 05, 2000 issued by the Deputy Secretary,
Department of Panchayat, Government of West Bengal,
regarding the appointment of the irregular appointees in
Panchayat establishment. In the said circular, it has
been stated that except those who were appointed
2
permanently on the basis of the seniority and those who
were appointed within December 31, 1991 and had
worked at least for 240 days in a year for a period of
three years and those who were appointed after that
date will submit true forms stating the date of
appointment and other particulars and were requested
to send the necessary particulars in two separate forms
within a month to the appropriate authority. The
Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat had
submitted the form wherein the name of the petitioner
was incorporated.
On February 27, 2001 a notification by the
Department of Panchayats, Government of West Bengal,
was published in the Gazette wherein the policy of the
State Government was mentioned to the effect that
those persons should be allowed a reasonable
opportunity to be considered on the basis of their
qualifications and other eligibility criteria with
relaxation of maximum age limits prescribed for the
purpose only, in the event that such persons started
working in the Panchayat before attaining the
prescribed maximum age. It was further mentioned
that the Governor had been pleased to direct that for
the purpose of recruitment to any post in a Panchayat,
the recruiting authority shall consider in the same
manner along with the candidates sponsored on
requisition, by the employment exchange, the
3
candidature of any such person who has worked for
three or more consecutive years or at least 240 days in
each year within the last five years preceding the date of
notifying the vacancy to the employment exchange, his
work being perennial nature.
On the basis of this circular, the petitioner has,
inter alia, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to approve the service of
the petitioner for the said post in Panchayat Sahayak and to release his salary for the post forthwith and for other reliefs.
Mr. Tapan Chakrabarty, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that even after the filing of the writ petition, the respondents have issued successive memoranda in 2010 and 2011 in order to provide security of tenure, appropriate emoluments and certain terminal benefits to the casual and daily rated contract workers which had remained in the various Government establishments for a considerable period of more than 10 years in connection with the implementation of the various schemes and projects of the various departments of the Government. The said circular further recorded that the Governor had been pleased to order that the casual/daily rated or contract workers who were attached to various establishments of the Government departments or other organizations for not less than years continuously on August 01, 2011 and 4 have rendered service for at least 240 days each year may remain engaged in the same status and capacity till their attaining age of 60 years. It has been further provided that an entry point basic of Rs.6,600/- per month will be admissible to casual and daily rated Group-'D' workers as consolidated remuneration and similar entry point pay will be admissible to casual or daily rated Group-'C' workers and an employee of any other category. Mr. Chakrabarty submits that the petitioner by dint of this circular is entitled to the benefits mentioned therein.
Mr. K. M. Hossain, the learned Advocate for the State-respondents, submits that the writ petition was filed on the strength of the notification dated September 05, 2000 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Panchayat, Government of West Bengal, inviting names of certain class of casual employees within a period of one month from the date of the publication of the said notification. Mr. Hossain had drawn my attention to the specific provisions contained in the said circular that only those names which will be received from the Panchayat Body within the period of one month would be considered for appointment. Mr. Hossain further submits that the concerned Gram Panchayat long after the expiry of one month in the month of December, 2000 had sent the list of casual employees attached to the said Gram Panchayat where, 5 undoubtedly, the name of the petitioner appears. This was done pursuant to the notification dated September 05, 2000 and since nothing has been done pursuant thereto, the petitioner had filed this writ petition. Mr. Hossain, the learned Advocate appearing for the State-respondents, had submitted that this delay in sending the names of the petitioner and other candidates for the time being may be glossed over. The fact remains that the petitioner's case has neither been allowed nor has it been rejected. This remains exactly where it lay when it was sent. Mr. Hossain, in his usual fairness, has submitted that the notification of 2011 even if do not strictly form the foundation of the writ petition is, however, on a subject matter affecting the rights of the petitioner and conferring on him certain benefits are applicable to him. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Advocate for the State-respondents finds no reason why the petitioner should not be given the minimum basic pay at the entry point mentioned in the said circular, if he is otherwise qualified for the same in terms of the said circular.
Mr. Chakrabarty, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has made a grievance that he was getting only Rs. 150/- per month which even after the revision falls far more short amount of the notification of 2011. 6 In the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider the stand taken by the State-respondents to be fairly reasonable and I am of the view that the petitioner has a right to be considered in terms of the latest notification issued by the department on the point. In such view of it, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to forward the name of the petitioner to the concerned Block Development Officer within a period of eight weeks from the date of the communication of this order and if the petitioner satisfies the conditions and qualifications laid down in the relevant circulars, the said Block Development Officer shall in turn forward the same to the appropriate authority for extending the securities provided in the said circular. Since the petitioner has been working since 1999, it is only expected that after the name is sent to the Block Development Officer, further steps will be taken with all expedition and preferably within a period of three months from the date of transmission of the requisitions to the Block Development Officer. It is made clear that this order shall not be considered as an expression of the Court about the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner to the benefits mentioned in the circular. The same shall be decided by the concerned authorities strictly in accordance with law and within the time frame provided in the order. 7 It is further made clear that if the Block Development Officer is of the opinion that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions laid down in the said circular for being given the benefits and the securities provided under the said notification, he shall pass a reasoned order after giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of being heard and shall communicate the same to the petitioner within a week thereafter. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as early as possible upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.)