Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akshay Kumar Chakraborty & Ors vs 24.06.15 The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 June, 2015
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
W. P. No.12123 (W) of 2015
Akshay Kumar Chakraborty & Ors.
v.
24.06.15 The State of West Bengal & Ors.
SL-08
(S.R.)
Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay
Mr. B. Rai Chaudhury
Mr. S. Sanyal
Ms. Daisy Basu ... for the petitioners.
Mr. Achinta Kumar Banerjee
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty ... for the University.
This writ application has been preferred
challenging, inter alia, a memorandum dated 22nd April,
2015 issued by the respondent no.5.
Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed in the post of Technical Assistants/Technical Supervisors/Herbarium Assistants in the University of Burdwan and that they were parties to an earlier writ application being Civil Order No.893 (W) of 1989, which was disposed of on 4th April, 1996 with a direction to treat the writ petitioners therein as "teachers" within the meaning of sub-sections (21) and (22) of Section 2 of the Burdwan University Act, 1981.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the writ application, Mr. Mukhopadhyay submits that though in compliance with the earlier order of this court, the petitioners were granted 2 the status of teachers but there was an existing dispute pertaining to fixation of pay-scale and age of retirement.
He further submits that the petitioners were granted non-UGC scale and in terms of the Ordinance Nos.10 and 11 of the said University, their age of retirement should be sixty-two years but by the memorandum impugned in the writ application, the respondents have directed one of the petitioners to retire on 30th June, 2015 as he completes his sixtieth year of age and aggrieved by such curtailment of service tenure, the petitioners have approached this Court.
Per contra Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the university authorities submits that the petitioners are enjoying the UGC scale and in terms of Ordinance of the said university their age of retirement is 60 years.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record.
Prima facie, the dispute pertaining to age of retirement does not stand reflected in the petitioners' representation dated 12th of August, 2010 and that though the issue pertaining to retirement age was within the knowledge of the petitioners since 20th July, 2010, when a committee, constituted by the said university, 3 adopted a resolution to the effect that the retirement age of the petitioners would be 60 years, the petitioners have approached this Court only a few days prior to the date of retirement as stipulated in the impugned memorandum.
In the conspectus of facts, I am of the opinion that no prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners towards issuance of an interim order of stay of operation of the memorandum dated 22nd April, 2015.
The respondents would be at liberty to file their affidavits-in-opposition within three weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.
List this matter as 'For Orders' in the Daily Supplementary List of this court on 28th July, 2015.
Needless to observe the action taken by the respondents shall abide by the result of the writ application.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)