Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
( Smt. Devi Majumder (Mondal) vs The State Of West Bengal & on 6 March, 2012
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1
72 6.3.2012
c.l.
pd. W.P. No.12359(W) of 2011
( Smt. Devi Majumder (Mondal) -Vs- The State of West Bengal &
Ors.)
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya ... For the petitioner.
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks consideration of her
case as per paragraph-6 of the Memo. dated 23rd April, 2010.
The case of the petitioner is that she was engaged as a
Sahayika in 2003 and has been working since then in the concerned
S.S.K. An agreement has also been entered with her but admittedly,
no approval letter has been issued by the authorities concerned. In
fact, an advertisement was issued on 26th October, 2009 for selection
of Sahayika. W.P.No.13345 (W) of 2010 was filed and at the time of
hearing, it was submitted by the Counsel for the State respondents
that no further action was being taken for the selection process and therefore, no order was passed in the writ petition. After the Circular dated 23rd April, 2010, an application has been filed on 7th July, 2011 and such representation be directed to be considered. In the event, no prayer is made for consideration of the representation dated 7th July, 2011, then the representation dated 10th November, 2010 be directed to be considered in the light of the Circular dated 23rd April, 2010. 2 None appears on behalf of the State respondents in spite of service. Affidavit-of-service filed be kept on record.
Having considered the facts of the case, the representations dated 7th July, 2011 and 10th November, 2010 have both proceeded on the basis that the petitioner discharged her function as an approved Sahayika. This fact is not correct, as it is only for the year 2003, that the engagement of the petitioner was approved and till 2005, she has been paid her honorarium. Thereafter, there has been no renewal of her engagement or grant of approval. Admittedly, the engagement of a Sahayika is governed by an agreement between the parties on a year to year basis. The only agreement, i.e., on record, is for the period 2005-2006. Thereafter, no agreement has been disclosed and in the representation dated 13th November, 2006, the petitioner herself has admitted that she has been left out from consideration in the post of Sahayika. It was pursuant to the advertisement dated 26th October, 2009 that she had applied wherein her case was directed to be considered but as the process was abandoned, the question of considering the petitioner's case did not arise. A representation was made after the order was passed in W.P.13345 (W) of 2010 and in the said representation too, the petitioner proceeded on the basis as if her engagement was continuing and sought for non-discontinuance and for reengagement. The very word "reengagement" denotes a snap in the relationship between the employer and the employee. She has also sought for issuance of an approval letter for reengagement. Similarly, in the representation dated 7th July, 2011, she has 3 proceeded on the basis that her engagement has been approved. She has also stated that she has not been terminated and although she proceeded on the basis that she has been an existing Sahayika but this is not the correct fact. Therefore, this writ petition merits no order and the same is accordingly dismissed.
It is only on the prayer of the Counsel for the petitioner that leave is granted to the petitioner to file a representation with the authorities, if so entitled to in law.
Urgent certified Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
( Patherya, J. ) 4