Calcutta High Court
Sukesh Chandra Shome vs The Calcutta State Transport ... on 18 August, 2010
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
WP No. 1055 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SUKESH CHANDRA SHOME Petitioner
Versus
THE CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION Respondents
& OTHERS For Petitioner : Mr. Anjan Bhattacharjee, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. L. C. Bihani, Sr. Advocate BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPEN SEN Date : 18th August, 2010.
The Court : The Petitioner prays for quashing the Order dated 3.8.2010 whereby and whereunder the Depot Manager, Paikpara Depot of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation informed the Petitioner that pursuant to the orders of the Managing Director, he was designated to his original post of Driver under Badge No. 4755 with immediate effect and accordingly, the previous Order dated 10.1.2005 (Annexure P-3) by which he was re-
designated as a Junior Traffic Supervisor (JTS) was being cancelled.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as prior to the issuance of the said order, neither any opportunity of hearing nor any Notice was given to the Petitioner.
2
Mr. L. C. Bihani, learned Counsel however, submits that the Petitioner was initially appointed on the post of a Driver and according to the line of promotion, he can only be a Vehicle Inspector. So far as Junior Traffic Inspector is concerned, the Feeder post of such a Supervisor is the post of a Conductor but a Driver does not have a line of promotion by which he can be promoted on the post of a Traffic Supervisor.
At this juncture Mr. Anjan Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel very fairly submits that he has instructions not to claim any promotion but he submits that at least, the pay that the Petitioner was drawing, even if wrongly designated as a JTS, should be ordered to be protected. Mr. L. C. Bihani, learned Counsel submits that most of these Drivers who were re- designated as Junior Traffic Supervisors were done so erroneously and in violation of the Rules governing such lines of promotion and therefore, if the Petitioner is designated back to his own original post, he cannot be allowed to claim an estoppel against the Rule. However, Mr. Bihani nevertheless states that he will advise his clients to consider the case of the Petitioner sympathetically for protection of pay as well as for considering the placement of the Petitioner in any other area of activity in the event, by an efflux of time, the Petitioner may have lost his capabilities to function as a Driver.
Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this Writ Petition pending before this Court. Accordingly, the same is disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh Representation before the Managing Director. If and when such a Representation is filed, the Managing Director shall, keeping in mind the submissions of Mr. L. C. Bihani, deal with the same and take decision in accordance with law and within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt thereof and communicate the same to the Petitioner within one week thereafter.
3
With the aforesaid observations and directions this Writ Petition is disposed of.
It goes without saying that if the Managing Director desires to come to a positive finding as to whether the Petitioner, by efflux of time, has become disabled from carrying on his duties as a Driver, then he would be free to seek medical advice from the Medical Board of the State Government. In the meantime and till the Managing Director takes a decision, the Petitioner will not be compelled to perform heavy duties but will be assigned light duties which may include driving within the garage premises and not outside.
All points are kept open before the Managing Director, Calcutta State Transport Corporation.
All parties concerned are to act on a Photostat signed copy of this Order on usual undertakings.
(TAPEN SEN, J.) M.Sen