Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mandira Basuli vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 June, 2012
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P. No. 22092 (W) of 2005
Mandira Basuli
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. N. Chatterjee
Mr. Anjan Banerjee ....for the petitioner.
Mr. Subrata Mukherjee ...for the State
Mr. Sudhakar Biswas ...for the UOI.
Heard on : June 20, 2012.
Judgment on: June 20, 2012.
The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated October 24,
2005 is questioning a notice dated October 19, 2005 (WP p.45) issued by the
Block Development Officer, Panskura-I Development Block directing her to
explain why her certificate of authority to act as authorised agent (WP p.37)
under Standardised Agency System of the National Savings Organisation of
Government of India should not be cancelled.
The Block Development Officer issued the notice alleging that the
petitioner obtained the certificate suppressing the fact that her husband was an
employee of the Department of Posts, India. Relevant part of the notice is quoted
below:-
"It has been observed that you have suppressed the fact that your husband is an
employee of Postal Department and wilfully and fraudulently violated the provision 10 of the
Form of Agreement. So you are directed to inform why your SAS Agency will not be terminated."
The Block Development Officer is the fourth respondent in the WP. The
Savings Development Officer in his office has filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition dated June 01, 2012 on his behalf. With the AO the deponent thereof has produced a letter dated October 28, 2005 (AO p.17). The letter dated October 28, 2005 was written by the Block Development Officer to the Deputy Director of Small Savings, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.
Relevant parts of the letter are quoted below:-
"After going through all this, I am satisfied that Smt. Mandira Basuli is not eligible for SAS and willfully and deliberately violated the agreement. In this regard, I like to draw your attention to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which she highlighted in her defence, which is enclosed herewith in enclosure No.1 to 4.
Necessary direction may kindly be issued regarding termination of her Agency. The Undersigned already expressed her about his inability to renew the agency and communicated to her vide memo. No.1820 dated 26.10.05, which is enclosed herewith."
Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Biswas appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Block Development Officer and the Deputy Director of Small Savings, have submitted that there is nothing to show that the petitioner's certificate under the System has already been cancelled.
The admitted position is that the petitioner's request for renewal of the term of the certificate was not allowed. There is nothing to show that the Deputy Director has taken any action on the basis of the letter of the Block Development Officer dated October 28, 2005.
The petitioner was also the holder of a certificate of authority for appointment of authorised agent under the Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna for canvassing and securing investments in P.O. Cumulative Time Deposit/Recurring Deposit Accounts.
Making the same allegations making which the Block Development Officer issued the notice dated October 19, 2005, the Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk initiated proceedings and finally cancelled the certificate of authority under Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna. Questioning the decision the petitioner moved a WP No.22964(W) of 2005 before this Court under art. 226. By a decision dated May 15, 2012 the WP was allowed.
The decision dated May 15, 2012 in W.P.No.22964(W) of 2005 is quoted below:-
"The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated November 2,2005 is questioning a decision of the Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal dated October 7, 2005 (WP p.38).
The petitioner's husband was appointed as an Extra-Departmental Telegraph Messenger in Panskura Sub-Post Office in Purba Medinipur with effect from September 16,1978 (WP para.5). The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Authority for Appointment as Authorized Agent under the Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna for canvassing and securing investments in P.O. Cumulative Time Deposit/Recurring Deposit Accounts. The Regional Director, National Savings, G/I, Calcutta (WB) issued the Certificate dated February 14,2000(WP p.24). Term of the Certificate was renewed from time to time.
The husband of the petitioner was selected for promotion to the Cadre of Group-D. Consequently, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tamluk Sub-division issued an office order dated July 31,2003 (WP p.29) giving him necessary posting as Mail Peon. Some Small Savings Agents of the locality submitted a complaint dated August 24,2005(WP p.33) that the petitioner was granted agency in spite of the fact that her husband was an employee of the Department of Posts, India.
Under the circumstances, the Deputy Director gave the decision dated October 7,2005 rejecting the petitioner's application dated September 2,2005 for renewal of term of her Agency. The Deputy Director referred to a Government of India Memo No.1 F.1/5/83-NS dated January 3,1984. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this WP. During pendency of the WP her husband retired from the services of the Department of Posts, India on May 31,2009.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baliram Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 637 and an unreported Single Bench decision of this Court dated June 8, 2004 in W.P.No.4658 (W) of 2004( Smt. Khuku Chakraborty(Roy) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the unreasonable restriction put by the Government Memo dated January 3, 1984 the authority concerned could not reject the petitioner's request for renewal of term of her Agency.
Counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the petitioner's request for renewal of term of her Agency was rejected because of the prohibition imposed by the Government of India Memo dated January 3,1984. Counsel for the State, besides adopting this submission of counsel for the Union of India, has said that the Deputy Director giving the impugned decision did not commit any wrong.
In my opinion, the two decisions cited to me support the case of the petitioner. It is beyond comprehension why wife of an employee of the Department of Posts, India could not be given an Agency under the Yojna. The prohibition, in my opinion, is unreasonable.
In Baliram Prasad their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not approve the prohibition against appointment of a near relative as Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster in a Post Office in which a cousin brother of the selected candidate was working as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent. The contention that appointment of a near relative "is fraught with the risk of fraud, etc." was rejected by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner intending to earn her livelihood, that she needs now the most, was treated unfairly and led to an unemployment phase. In my opinion, the impugned decision should be set aside and the authority concerned should be directed to decide the renewal request afresh.
For these reasons, I set a side the impugned decision dated October 7,2005, allow the WP to this extent and order as follows.
The Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal shall decide the question of renewal of term of the petitioner's certificate dated February 14,2000 afresh, keeping in mind that in the meantime the petitioner's husband has retired from the services of the Department of Posts, India. He shall also decide the petitioner's claim for commission arrears. He shall hear the petitioner and give decision within six weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox".
Mr. Chatterjee, Mr. Biswas and Mr. Mukherjee all have said that the decision dated May 15, 2012 given in the petitioner's W.P.No.22964(W) of 2005 squarely applies to this WP filed by her questioning the steps taken for cancellation of her certificate under the Standardised Agency System. They have invited me to dispose of this WP directing the Deputy Director to decide the petitioner's' renewal request on the basis of the decision dated May 15, 2012.
I am of the view that the request should be accepted; for I have no hesitation in saying that the principles applying which the decision dated May 15, 2012 was given are squarely applicable to the present case as well, and that the petitioner's request for renewal of her certificate under the Standardised Agency System should be decided applying the principles stated in the decision dated May 15, 2012.
For these reasons, I set aside the impugned notice dated October 19, 2005, allow the WP to this extent and order as follows.
The Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk shall decide the question of renewal of term of the petitioner's certificate dated November 19, 1991 keeping in mind that in the meantime the petitioner's husband has retired from the services of the Department of Posts, India. He shall decide the petitioner's claim for commission arrears. He shall hear the petitioner and give decision within six weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.) kc In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas W.P. No. 22092 (W) of 2005 Mandira Basuli
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. N. Chatterjee
Mr. Anjan Banerjee ....for the petitioner.
Mr. Subrata Mukherjee ...for the State
Mr. Sudhakar Biswas ...for the UOI.
Heard on : June 20, 2012.
Judgment on: June 20, 2012.
The Court : The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated October 24, 2005 is questioning a notice dated October 19, 2005 (WP p.45) issued by the Block Development Officer, Panskura-I Development Block directing her to explain why her certificate of authority to act as authorised agent (WP p.37) under Standardised Agency System of the National Savings Organisation of Government of India should not be cancelled.
The Block Development Officer issued the notice alleging that the petitioner obtained the certificate suppressing the fact that her husband was an employee of the Department of Posts, India. Relevant part of the notice is quoted below:-
"It has been observed that you have suppressed the fact that your husband is an employee of Postal Department and wilfully and fraudulently violated the provision 10 of the Form of Agreement. So you are directed to inform why your SAS Agency will not be terminated."
The Block Development Officer is the fourth respondent in the WP. The Savings Development Officer in his office has filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition dated June 01, 2012 on his behalf. With the AO the deponent thereof has produced a letter dated October 28, 2005 (AO p.17). The letter dated October 28, 2005 was written by the Block Development Officer to the Deputy Director of Small Savings, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.
Relevant parts of the letter are quoted below:-
"After going through all this, I am satisfied that Smt. Mandira Basuli is not eligible for SAS and willfully and deliberately violated the agreement. In this regard, I like to draw your attention to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which she highlighted in her defence, which is enclosed herewith in enclosure No.1 to 4.
Necessary direction may kindly be issued regarding termination of her Agency. The Undersigned already expressed her about his inability to renew the agency and communicated to her vide memo. No.1820 dated 26.10.05, which is enclosed herewith."
Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Biswas appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the Block Development Officer and the Deputy Director of Small Savings, have submitted that there is nothing to show that the petitioner's certificate under the System has already been cancelled.
The admitted position is that the petitioner's request for renewal of the term of the certificate was not allowed. There is nothing to show that the Deputy Director has taken any action on the basis of the letter of the Block Development Officer dated October 28, 2005.
The petitioner was also the holder of a certificate of authority for appointment of authorised agent under the Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna for canvassing and securing investments in P.O. Cumulative Time Deposit/Recurring Deposit Accounts.
Making the same allegations making which the Block Development Officer issued the notice dated October 19, 2005, the Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk initiated proceedings and finally cancelled the certificate of authority under Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna. Questioning the decision the petitioner moved a WP No.22964(W) of 2005 before this Court under art. 226. By a decision dated May 15, 2012 the WP was allowed.
The decision dated May 15, 2012 in W.P.No.22964(W) of 2005 is quoted below:-
"The Court: The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated November 2,2005 is questioning a decision of the Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal dated October 7, 2005 (WP p.38).
The petitioner's husband was appointed as an Extra-Departmental Telegraph Messenger in Panskura Sub-Post Office in Purba Medinipur with effect from September 16,1978 (WP para.5). The petitioner applied for a Certificate of Authority for Appointment as Authorized Agent under the Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna for canvassing and securing investments in P.O. Cumulative Time Deposit/Recurring Deposit Accounts. The Regional Director, National Savings, G/I, Calcutta (WB) issued the Certificate dated February 14,2000(WP p.24). Term of the Certificate was renewed from time to time.
The husband of the petitioner was selected for promotion to the Cadre of Group-D. Consequently, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tamluk Sub- division issued an office order dated July 31,2003 (WP p.29) giving him necessary posting as Mail Peon. Some Small Savings Agents of the locality submitted a complaint dated August 24,2005(WP p.33) that the petitioner was granted agency in spite of the fact that her husband was an employee of the Department of Posts, India.
Under the circumstances, the Deputy Director gave the decision dated October 7,2005 rejecting the petitioner's application dated September 2,2005 for renewal of term of her Agency. The Deputy Director referred to a Government of India Memo No.1 F.1/5/83-NS dated January 3,1984. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed this WP. During pendency of the WP her husband retired from the services of the Department of Posts, India on May 31,2009.
Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baliram Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 637 and an unreported Single Bench decision of this Court dated June 8, 2004 in W.P.No.4658 (W) of 2004( Smt. Khuku Chakraborty(Roy) v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the unreasonable restriction put by the Government Memo dated January 3, 1984 the authority concerned could not reject the petitioner's request for renewal of term of her Agency.
Counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the petitioner's request for renewal of term of her Agency was rejected because of the prohibition imposed by the Government of India Memo dated January 3,1984. Counsel for the State, besides adopting this submission of counsel for the Union of India, has said that the Deputy Director giving the impugned decision did not commit any wrong.
In my opinion, the two decisions cited to me support the case of the petitioner. It is beyond comprehension why wife of an employee of the Department of Posts, India could not be given an Agency under the Yojna. The prohibition, in my opinion, is unreasonable.
In Baliram Prasad their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not approve the prohibition against appointment of a near relative as Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster in a Post Office in which a cousin brother of the selected candidate was working as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent. The contention that appointment of a near relative "is fraught with the risk of fraud, etc." was rejected by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner intending to earn her livelihood, that she needs now the most, was treated unfairly and led to an unemployment phase. In my opinion, the impugned decision should be set aside and the authority concerned should be directed to decide the renewal request afresh.
For these reasons, I set a side the impugned decision dated October 7,2005, allow the WP to this extent and order as follows.
The Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal shall decide the question of renewal of term of the petitioner's certificate dated February 14,2000 afresh, keeping in mind that in the meantime the petitioner's husband has retired from the services of the Department of Posts, India. He shall also decide the petitioner's claim for commission arrears. He shall hear the petitioner and give decision within six weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox".
Mr. Chatterjee, Mr. Biswas and Mr. Mukherjee all have said that the decision dated May 15, 2012 given in the petitioner's W.P.No.22964(W) of 2005 squarely applies to this WP filed by her questioning the steps taken for cancellation of her certificate under the Standardised Agency System. They have invited me to dispose of this WP directing the Deputy Director to decide the petitioner's' renewal request on the basis of the decision dated May 15, 2012.
I am of the view that the request should be accepted; for I have no hesitation in saying that the principles applying which the decision dated May 15, 2012 was given are squarely applicable to the present case as well, and that the petitioner's request for renewal of her certificate under the Standardised Agency System should be decided applying the principles stated in the decision dated May 15, 2012.
For these reasons, I set aside the impugned notice dated October 19, 2005, allow the WP to this extent and order as follows.
The Deputy Director, Small Savings, Tamluk shall decide the question of renewal of term of the petitioner's certificate dated November 19, 1991 keeping in mind that in the meantime the petitioner's husband has retired from the services of the Department of Posts, India. He shall decide the petitioner's claim for commission arrears. He shall hear the petitioner and give decision within six weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J.) kc