Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amit Sengupta vs The Union Of India & Ors on 10 April, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
10.04.2018
srm
W.P.C.T. No. 18 of 2018
Amit Sengupta
Versus
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Amit Sengupta ... Petitioner in person.
Mr. Robin Ghosh .... Authorised representative
of the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner,
Kolkata Office
On the prayer made by the petitioner, leave is granted to him to file
affidavit of service in course of the day.
This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
assailing a final order dated March 5, 2018 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in the matter of Amit Sengupta vs.
Union of India & Ors. (In Re: OA 350/326/2018).
By virtue of the final order impugned to this writ application, the above
original application of the petitioner was disposed of with a direction upon the
respondent No.4, namely the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Ministry
of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi, to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated February 28, 2018 (Annexure A/7 to the original application) in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force by passing a well reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the above order, if 2 such representation was lying pending for consideration, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner forthwith. The learned Tribunal further directed the respondent authority that in the event the decision of the respondents goes in favour of the petitioner, the consequential benefits may be given to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking decision in the matter. Status quo as on the date of passing the order impugned to this writ application, so far as continuance of the petitioner in his present post was concerned, was directed to be maintained till disposal of his representation and communication of the decision to him.
Having heard the petitioner in person as also Mr. Robin Ghosh, Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, and authorised representative of the respondents, we find that, according to the petitioner, while the petitioner was working for gain as Data Entry Operator (DEO) Grade‐C, the Government created a new entry cadre of Data Processing Assistant (DPA) of Group‐C in the Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Cell under Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and adopted a policy decision to abolish the posts of Data Entry Operator (DEO) and to convert the existing Data Entry Operators into the new cadre of Data Processing Assistants (DPAs). It was the case of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal that he was transferred to Agartala by an order of transfer dated February 27, 2018 without following the norms.
3
It is further submitted by the petitioner before us that the learned Tribunal instead of entering into the merits of the order of transfer directed the respondents to consider his representation. Secondly, his above representation dated February 28, 2018 does not contain any legal points. His statements made in paragraph 10 to this writ application contain legal points and leave should be granted to him to file further representation for incorporating the aforesaid points of law in his representation.
It is submitted by Mr. Robin Ghosh, Enforcement Officer, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolkata Region, and authorised representative of the respondents, on instruction, that the office of the respondents in Kolkata Region does not receive any decision from the respondent No.4 in respect of the above representation of the petitioner. It is further submitted by him that the present posting of the petitioner has not been disturbed so far as in compliance of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. It is also submitted by him that this writ application is filed before expiry of the period mentioned by the learned Tribunal for disposal of the representation of the petitioner.
Having heard the petitioner in person and the aforesaid authorised representative of the respondents as also considering the facts and circumstances thoroughly, we are of the opinion that with regard to the question of examining the order of transfer of the petitioner by the learned Tribunal itself or to relegate the matter to the respondent authority for consideration of his representation is the discretionary power of the learned 4 Tribunal. More so, enough protection has been granted by the learned Tribunal to the petitioner in directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the present posting of the petitioner till disposal of his representation and communication of the decision of the respondent authority to him.
So far as the second ground of the petitioner is concerned that the learned Tribunal failed and/or neglected to direct the respondent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner in respect of his order of transfer in the light of his legal right, as disclosed in the original application, we find that the learned Tribunal directed the respondent No.4 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force by passing a well reasoned order and to communicate the decision to him. The learned Tribunal further directed the respondent authority that in the event the decision goes in favour of the petitioner, the consequential benefits may be given to him in the time framed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal also granted order of maintaining status quo so far as the posting of the petitioner is concerned as far as continuance of the petitioner is concerned till disposal of representation and communication of the decision of the respondents to him.
The learned Tribunal further directed the Registry to communicate the order impugned to this writ application with a paper book to the respondent No.4 allowing the prayer of the petitioner subject to payment of cost within a week from the date of passing the order.
5
Therefore, we find no substance in the submissions made by the petitioner that the learned Tribunal was ignorant to direct the respondent authority to consider his representation in accordance with law.
In view of the above, we are of the considered view that this writ application is not only misconceived it is abuse of the process of law and should be stopped at the bottom of the door.
This writ application stands dismissed.
This order will not have any effect on the direction upon the respondent No.4 given by the learned Tribunal by its final order dated February 5, 2018.
Let there be a cost of Rs.1,000/‐ to be paid to Mr. Robin Ghosh, Enforcement Officer, authorised representative of the respondents before us, towards his expenses for appearing before us within April 12, 2018 and the petitioner is further directed to deposit the receipt, which may be issued by Mr. Ghosh, in the Office of the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side of this Court within the aforesaid date.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J. ) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)