Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Heera Shaw vs Union Of India And Others on 24 January, 2012
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
S/L. 23.
January 24, 2012.
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W. P. C. T. No. 339 of 2011
Heera Shaw
....Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and Others
...Respondents.
Mr. Sudipto Panda, Mr. Subrata Ghosh ...for the petitioner.
Mr. Hiran Lal Majumder ...for the respondents.
By moving this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner challenges an order dated July 13, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in Original Application No. 777 of 2010.
The original application was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
The writ petitioner applied for appointment in the post of Fire Engine Driver. He was offered an appointment on December 21, 1984 as a Fire Engine Driver in Army Ordnance Corps Unit, OD, Calcutta.
We are informed now that the writ petitioner joined in the said post. While he was discharging his function, surprisingly he received, yet, another appointment letter dated September 14, 1989 appointing him in the same post of Fire Engine Driver. He made representations, which were not considered. Therefore, he approached the tribunal. The tribunal said that the application was barred by limitation.
It seems that the tribunal, it appears to us, did not consider that the cause of action was a recurring one and grave injustice was committed to the writ petitioner. He was appointed as Fire Engine Driver in December 21, 1984, and as such there cannot be any scope to issue second appointment letter on September 14, 1989.
Mr. Hiran Lal Majumder, learned advocate appears for the respondents and submits that there was a ban for giving appointment at the relevant point of time and as such his appointment was withdrawn.
If somebody was appointed against a permanent vacancy, his appointment could not have been withdrawn without initiating any proper proceeding.
We fail to appreciate that how a person, who has, already, been appointed against a cadre post after holding selection, could be removed from his service without initiating any proceeding. He did not apply for the second appointment. Therefore, there is no occasion to offer him any second appointment.
The entire action of the authority was wrong in dealing with the case. He was offered appointment in December 21, 1984 and he shall be entitled to all the benefits taking his date of appointment as on December 21, 1984.
The order impugned is, therefore, set aside.
We, further, record that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in his service taking his date of appointment as on December 21, 1984.
The writ petitioner stands allowed.
We make no order as to costs.
The office is directed to supply xerox certified copy of this order to the applicant, if applied for, on urgent basis.
(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Harish Tandon, J.)