Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Partha Roy vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 July, 2018
Author: Shekhar B. Saraf
Bench: Shekhar B. Saraf
1
04.07.2018
ss
31 W.P. 825(W) of 2018
Partha Roy
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. Prantik Gorai
Mr. Amit Kumar Muhuri ... For the petitioner
Mr. Susanta Pal
Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar ... For the State
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty .. For the Council
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the writ petitioner is praying for implementation of an order passed in
the contempt jurisdiction of this High Court. In the contempt matter being No.38
of 1993 this Hon'ble Court by order dated February 28, 1994 had passed an
order with certain specific directions.
The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education on
October 12, 2012 has written to the Joint Secretary, School Education
Department, Government of West Bengal, with regard to the said contempt
matter and requested him to take certain measures on the deficiencies in
compliance of the order dated February 28, 1994 in relation to the writ
petitioner. It seems that several letters have been exchanged between
departments of the Government of West Bengal but the writ petitioner has not
got his final relief.
2
By a letter dated January 13, 2017, a demand of justice has been made by
the writ petitioner wherein he has written to the Joint Secretary, School
Education Department, Government of West Bengal, the Chairman, West Bengal
Council for Higher Secondary Education and the Secretary, Department of
Finance, Government of West Bengal.
Letters dated August 26, 2014 and July 31, 2015 of the Secretary, West
Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education written to the Joint Secretary to
the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, clearly spells out
that the order passed in favour of the writ petitioner has not been complied with
by the respondent authorities and inspite of prayer made by the Secretary, West
Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, no action has been taken by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Education Department.
In my view, this is a continuing contempt of an order passed by this Court. Counsel on behalf of the State authorities submits that the law of limitation should apply and the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief at this belated stage. He further submits that the writ petitioner was appointed in the year 1994 and he has continued his service without any demur.
Upon perusal of the documents and records, it is clear that the West Bengal Council for Higher Education has been pursuing the case of the writ petitioner and has tried to give justice to him. However, due to inter-Government issues the same has not been done till date. In fact, a letter dated June 4, 2015 by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education shows that certain queries had 3 been raised by the Finance Department so that necessary action could be taken with regard to the said issue.
In view of the same, I do not find any reason not to issue writ of mandamus on the respondent authorities to consider the demand for justice made by him. It is to be noted that the petitioner continues to be in-service and therefore, question of limitation should not act as an impediment to his rightful claim that has arisen by an order passed by this Hon'ble Court.
After hearing Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that this matter should come to rest sooner than later. Accordingly, I direct the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal, to grant an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner and pass the necessary reasoned orders keeping in view the orders passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition and the contempt proceeding within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The reasoned order is to be communicated to the writ petitioners within two weeks from passing such reasoned order.
This writ petition is disposed of without however, any order as to costs. Since no affidavit is called for, all allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
(Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)