Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Asansol Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Arup Roy & Ors on 15 December, 2016
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MANDAMUS APPEAL
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sankar Acharyya
MAT 2020 of 2016
with
CAN 11703 of 2016
with
CAN 11708 of 2016
Asansol Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Vs.
Arup Roy & Ors.
For the appellants/applicants: Mr. L.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Mr. Saunak Bhattacharya
For the State: Mr. Sadananda Ganguli
Mr. Debapratim Banerjee
For the respondents/writ petitioners: Mr. Swapan Banerjee
Judgment on: 15th December, 2016.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be taken on record.
In re: CAN 11708 of 2016 This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. After considering the submission made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the learned advocate for the appellants to explain the delay in filing the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 11708 of 2016, is accordingly allowed.
In re: MAT 2020 of 2016 With CAN 11703 of 2016 By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on day's list along with the application for stay.
The appeal as well as the application for stay arises out of an order dated 6th April, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 15434 (W) of 2015. The appellants before this Court are the Asansol Municipal Corporation represented by its Mayor and its Commissioner.
Even a bare perusal of the order dated 6th April, 2016, reveals the same to be interlocutory in nature. It further appears therefrom that peremptory direction for filing of affidavit-in-opposition was given and the following interim directions were passed: -
"In view of the above developments the writ petitioners shall be allowed to continue to work as temporary or casual employees unless and until a final decision is taken in the matter. The respondent authorities are restrained from initiating any selection process to fill up the nineteen posts till the disposal of this writ application, without the leave of this Court.
The surviving writ petitioners and the legal heir of the deceased writ petitioner will be paid arrear salary according to the order dated 15th June, 2005 of Mr. Justice Soumitra Pal at page 89A of the writ petition.
Furthermore, they shall be allowed to work as temporary employees forthwith not later than from 2nd May, 2016 and be paid their salary and any other admissible allowance."
At the time of hearing of the matter, the learned advocate representing the respondents, being the writ petitioners, submits that Asansol Municipal Corporation has already complied with the order dated 6th April, 2016, in part. In this context, he handsover a copy of a memo dated 28th October, 2016, reflecting engagement of one of the writ petitioners pursuant to the order of 6th April, 2016.
Even if the said memo has been issued in compliance of the Court's order dated 6th April, 2016, it cannot render the appeal preferred by the appellants herein infructuous since the rights of the appellants remain preserved notwithstanding compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge by the appellants herein. However, we do not wish to interfere at this stage since the instant appeal arises out of an interlocutory order. At the same time, we make it clear that any action on the part of Asansol Municipal Corporation in compliance of the order dated 6th April, 2016, shall be strictly without the prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellants and issuance of engagement letters or any further step taken by Asansol Municipal Corporation shall abide by the final result of the writ petition.
So far as direction for payment of arrear salaries, as stated in the order dated 6th April, 2016, is concerned, the appellants are not required to disburse any payment at this stage, but shall set apart the entire amount and keep it in an interest bearing fixed deposit account until final disposal of the writ petition.
The appellants are directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition before the learned Single Judge peremptorily within one week after the Christmas vacation. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within a fortnight thereafter.
The parties are at liberty to mention before the learned Single Judge for early hearing of the writ petition immediately upon exchange of affidavits.
The appeal and the application for stay are disposed of accordingly. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) I agree.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.) pg .