Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tapan Kumar Sen vs Steel Authority Of India Limited & Ors on 7 September, 2011
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
07.09.2011.
W.P. No. 3831 (W) of 2011
Tapan Kumar Sen
Versus
Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors.
Mr. Gobinda Chaudhuri.
...For the Petitioner.
Ms. Chabi Chakraborty.
...For the Respondents.
Affidavit‐of‐service filed today by the petitioner be kept on record.
This writ application is filed by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authority for fixing his seniority from the date of induction in the Planning and Engineering Department and further commanding the respondents to re‐ determined the seniority of the petitioner from the date of induction in E‐2 grade in respect of his service under the respondent No.1.
According to the petitioner, he worked under the respondent No.1 as a Graduate Engineer Trainee with effect from May 31, 1971 (Junior Industrial Trainee). According to him, he was subsequently promoted on September 11, 1974 to the post of Industrial Engineer which was equivalent to E‐2 grade and he worked till November 24, 1976. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the post of Foreman in Planning and Engineering Department of the respondent No.4 by an Office 2 Order dated November 24, 1976. According to him, this post was designated as Assistant Engineer in the Planning and Engineering Department of the respondent No.1. According to him, it was a post equivalent to E‐2 grade but the petitioner was placed in E‐3 grade with effect from September 11, 1984.
At the very outset, a preliminary objection is raised by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of this writ application. The attention of this Court is drawn towards an order dated April 2, 1992 passed in the matter of Sri Tapan Kumar Sen vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (In Re: C.R. 12535 (W) of 1986) involving the selfsame cause of action. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the above judgment bearing FMA No. 1446 of 1993 and the same was dismissed on May 3, 2002 dismissing the writ application. The attention of this Court is also drawn towards the statements made in paragraph 17 of this writ application to the effect that a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Let a true copy of the judgment dated May 3, 2002 delivered in FMA No.1446 of 1993 be kept on record. 3
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties as also upon consideration of the subject matter of challenge involved in the writ application bearing CR No.12535 (W) of 1986, the judgment dated April 2, 1992 delivered in the above writ application, the judgment dated May 3, 2002 delivered in FMA No.1446 of 1993 as also the statements made in paragraph 17 of this writ application with regard to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in the above matter, I find that this writ application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of constructive res judicata and the same is dismissed.
There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.
srm ( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. )