Calcutta High Court
Arup Bhattacharya vs Chief Judge on 16 April, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
WP No.897 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ARUP BHATTACHARYA
Versus
CHIEF JUDGE, CITY SESSIONS COURT & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE
Date : 16th April, 2014.
Appearance:
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Chhandak Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya, Adv.
The Court : The petitioner was a stenographer attached to a fast track court in the City Sessions Court, Calcutta prior to abolition of fast track courts with effect from April 1, 2013.
The petitioner claims that since several of the fast track courts in the State were subsequently retained at the behest of the State Government as permanent fast track courts and some of the fast track courts have been redesignated as regular courts with the creation of new courts, there was no need 2 to terminate the services of the petitioner with effect from April 1, 2013 only to re-engage the petitioner with effect from June 1, 2013 when the petitioner was attending the court everyday but, admittedly, was not assigned any work.
There appears to have been a misunderstanding as a result of a communication gap between the State Government and the judiciary pertaining to the retention of some fast track courts as permanent fast track courts and the creation of new courts in lieu of some of the abolished fast track courts. In particular, there appears to have been no clear communication to the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court prior to May, 2013 that the staff deployed in the fast track courts were to be retained for the permanent fast track courts or new courts created by the State Government order. As a consequence, the petitioner and several other staff attached to one or more of the fast track courts in the City Sessions Court were left without work and their services were terminated with effect from April 1, 2013. Following a subsequent notification of May 15, 2013, it was decided that all staff engaged on contractual basis in the fast track courts should continue in the newly created permanent fast track courts and other new courts till such time that the staff in such new courts were recruited through an appropriate process. Accordingly, the petitioner was invited to rejoin with effect from June 1, 2013.
The petitioner claims that since it would be evident from the papers that the petitioner and others similarly placed had been orally instructed to attend the courts and wait for some development or an assignment of work, the months of April and May should be considered as working months for the 3 petitioner and the petitioner's dues released since there was only an artificial discontinuation without any effective termination.
It, however, appears to be the fairly admitted position that the petitioner and others similarly placed, whose services had been formally terminated with effect from April 1, 2013, had not been assigned any work prior to their re-engagement with effect from June 1, 2013. Indeed, paragraph 12.1 of the petition claims that the petitioner did not attend office after April 29, 2013 since the petitioner had not been assigned any duties during the days in April, 2013 when the petitioner apparently attended the Courts. It also does not appear that there was any formal order for the petitioner to attend the courts; the petitioner may have been asked to come to the office to find out the fate of the petitioner pertaining to possible future re-engagement, but there does not appear to have been any intention on the part of the Court or the Government to assign any work to the petitioner prior to any formal notification in such regard being published.
The formal notification was published on May 15, 2013, following which the Chief Judge of the City Sessions Court informed all the staff, including the petitioner, whose services had been terminated with effect from April 1, 2013, that they should report back for duty on June 1, 2013.
As it is evident that the petitioner did not work and was not required to discharge any duties during the two months of April and May, 2013 and the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis, which contract was formally terminated with effect from April 1, 2013, there does not appear to be any case 4 for the petitioner to be granted the payments for the months of April and May, 2013, prior to the petitioner being formally re-engaged on contractual basis from June 1, 2013.
WP No.897 of 2013 fails.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) bp.