Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Sailaranjan Das vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 February, 2017
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
21.02.2017
Item No. 17
Ct. No.1
AB
W.P.C.T. 266 of 2016
In the matter of : Sri Sailaranjan Das
- versus -
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Barun Chatterjee
........ for the Petitioner
Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Mr. Sajal Kanti Bhattacharyya
......... for the Union of India
The grievance of the petitioner is that at present in
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench there
is only one learned Judicial Member and one learned
Administrative Member and as the learned Administrative
Member, namely, Ms. Jaya Das Gupta had already recused
herself from the matter, there is no Bench to hear the
original application being O.A. No.350/0137/2016
preferred by the petitioner challenging, inter alia, an order
directing recovery of pay issued vide memorandum dated
10th June, 2016.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner approached this
Court earlier by a writ petition being AST 230 of 2016 since
his earlier original application was not being heard by the
learned Tribunal in view of a letter dated 28th June, 2016
and as the then learned Judicial Member was not inclined
to hear the said application. This Court by an order dated
28th July, 2016 directed that the original application should
be heard by a Bench consisting of Ms. Bidisha Banerjee as
the learned Judicial Member and Ms. Jaya Das Gupta as
2
the learned Administrative Member or any other Members,
in accordance with law. Pursuant to such direction of this
Court, the matter again appeared before the learned
Tribunal on 9th August, 2016 when Ms. Jaya Das Gupta,
learned Administrative recused herself from the matter on
personal ground. Subsequently, the matter appeared
before Ms. Urmita Dutta Sen, learned Administrative
Member and by an order dated 12th August, 2016 it was
observed that the matter cannot be heard by a Single
Bench and liberty was granted to approach the Hon'ble
High Court for obtaining appropriate order or clarification
and thereafter to mention the matter before the learned
Tribunal for fixation of date for further orders as the
petitioner/applicant was praying for interim relief against
recovery. The matter thereafter appeared before the Bench
comprising of Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, learned Judicial
Member and Mr. Uday Kumar Verma, learned
Administrative Member and by an order dated 29.8.2016
the original application was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file afresh. The petitioner thereafter filed afresh
an original application being O.A. No. 350/01327/2016
and the same was repeatedly mentioned for enlistment but
the learned Tribunal, comprising of Mr. A. K. Pattanayak,
learned Judicial Member and Ms. Jaya Das Gupta, learned
Administrative Member did not accede to such prayer for
enlistment since Ms. Jaya Das Gupta, the learned
Administrative Member had already recused herself from
the said application. Faced with such situation, the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate
directions and an interim protection since the respondents
have already started recovering an amount of Rs.5756/- 3 from the petitioner's monthly salary by virtue of the order dated 10th June, 2016, which is under challenge in the original application. The said impugned order dated 10th June, 2016 has been passed without taking into consideration an order passed by the learned Tribunal on similar facts and circumstances in O.A. No.1015 of 2012.
The fact that presently in the learned Tribunal there is only one learned Judicial Member, namely, Mr. Pattanayak and one learned Administrative Member, namely, Ms. Jaya Das Gupta could not be disputed by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably the learned Tribunal is presently functioning with one learned Judicial Member and one learned Administrative Member who had already declined to hear the original application. Thus, at present there is no Bench in the learned Tribunal to consider the petitioner's application and the interim relief, as prayed for in the same and such fact scenario has the effect of rendering the petitioner remediless. In the absence of any interim protection, the petitioner is suffering extreme prejudice since the respondents have already started recovering an amount of Rs.5756/- from the petitioner's monthly salary. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to lack of learned Members in the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the respondents are restrained from giving effect to further effect to the impugned order dated 10th June, 2016 till the original application being 4 O.A.No.350/0137/2016 is heard by an appropriate Bench of the learned Tribunal. It is made clear that the prayer for interim order has been considered since at present there is no other forum whom the petitioner can approach seeking such interim relief.
With the above observations and directions the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)