Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amar Hazra & Anr vs Visva Bharati on 29 August, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 8 W.P. 8757 (W) of 2011 Amar Hazra & Anr.
vs. Visva Bharati, Santiniketan & Ors.
Mr. Saurabh Guhathakurata ..For the Petitioners.
Mr. Subrata Roy Karmakar ....For the Visva Bharati University.
The petitioners seek regularization of their services. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are working at their respective posts for the last 20 years. The posts are sanctioned. The University Grants Commission has formulated a Scheme for regularization of such jobs of employees. The University is paying the petitioners, all monetary benefits as that of a regular employee. The appointments of the petitioners, however, have not been regularised. The interests of the petitioners are, therefore, prejudiced. In support of his contentions, he relies upon 2018 SCC Online SC 771 (Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand) and (2015) 17 SCC 504 (Dhananjoy Karmakar vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
The University is represented.
Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) considers Umadevi (3). In the facts of that case, there were Regularization Rules in place for the employees of State of Jharkhand. The 2 State of Jharkhand was directed to consider the plight of the employees in terms of such Regularization Rules. In Dhananjoy Karmakar (supra), it was found that, the petitioner was similarly situated and circumstanced as that of other teachers who were regularized. The facts situation in the present case depicts that, the plight of the petitioners are yet to be decided upon in terms of the Scheme put into place by the University Grants Commission.
It appears from the records that, there is a Scheme in place for regularization of the employees of the University. The University is, therefore, obliged to consider the petitioners in accordance with such Scheme. The University is yet to arrive at a decision with regard to the petitioners concerned, under the Scheme.
Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the University to take a decision, so far as the petitioners are concerned, in terms of the Scheme of the University Grants Commission, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Learned Advocate for the University submits that, at present there are no Group‐D posts to be filled up. It is for the University to take a decision on the regularization, in accordance with the Scheme in place and, in accordance with law.
W.P. 8757 (W) of 2011 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.
3(Debangsu Basak, J.) 4 5 6 7