Calcutta High Court
Calcutta Tramways Co. Bus ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 February, 2020
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
ORDER SHEET
WP 1157/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS CO. BUS DRIVER-O-KARMACHARI SAMITY & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA
Date : 28th February, 2020.
Mr. K. Paul, Adv., for petitioners.
Mr. N. Bhattacharyya, Adv.; Ms. D. Chattoraj, Adv.; Ms. R. Basak,
Adv., for the respondent Company.
The Court : The writ petitioners were all casual employees in The Calcutta Tramways Co. (1978) Ltd.
By a scheme for regularization floated by the State of West Bengal and adopted by the Company, they were all absorbed as regular employees on February 8, 2010. It was 2 stipulated in the letter of appointment that they would be regularised in their respective posts with effect from September 24, 2009. It is also stipulated in the letter of appointment that the seniority shall be maintained in accordance with the date of engagement prior to regularisation irrespective of bringing the petitioners on regular establishment by letter dated February 8, 2010.
The petitioners have filed the writ petition since they apprehend that some of them would be deprived of the benefit of the pension scheme prevailing in the Company since the year 2001, given retrospective effect from April 1, 1997.
The Company has filed affidavit in opposition. The first contention of the Company is that the writ application cannot be filed based on apprehensions. It is further clarified in the affidavit in opposition that whosoever of the petitioners has completed ten years in terms of the 3 pension scheme, would be entitled to pension. A list of eligible petitioners and also those who are ineligible has been annexed thereto.
Counsel for the petitioners would argue before this Court that since at paragraph 2 of the letter dated February 8, 2010 to the following effect has been used, i.e. "you will also be entitled to have benefits as admissible to otherwise regular employees of the Company", the petitioners are entitled to pension without exception. It is also argued that by reason of the expression at paragraph 4 that "seniority will be maintained in accordance with the dage of engagement prior to regularization irrespective of bringing you under regular establishment as themselves" would essentially mean that all the petitioners would be treated as having been regularized in service from the date of their first engagement with the Company al beit on casual basis. 4
This Court has carefully considered the pleadings and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. A plain and simple reading of the letter dated February 8, 2010, which was issued pursuant to a scheme floated by the State Government, indicates that their date of regularization is unequivocally with effect from September 24, 2009 and not any other date prior thereto. The expression at paragraph 4 of the said letter, set out hereinabove, has been used, in the opinion of this Court, only to determine the inter se seniority between the class of casual workers that were said to be absorbed pursuant to the letter dated February 8, 2010. In those circumstances, the writ petitioners cannot fall back on a single expression at paragraph 2 of the said letter and claim regularization with effect from the date of the first engagement which is itself contrary to the scheme.
5
It is, therefore, clarified that only those persons who have completed ten years of service, as set out in the affidavit in opposition, would be entitled to pension under the pension rules of the Company.
There is yet another angle from which the matter can be viewed. The petitioners have been absorbed essentially and only by reason of the scheme of the State Government dated September 24, 2009, as communicated and implemented by letter dated February 8, 2010. Their regularization was proposed with effect from September 24, 2009. The petitioners accepted and acted upon the same. The Company, in furtherence of such acceptance, has also acted upon the same. The principles of estoppel would be attracted against the petitioners to deny or contend anything contrary to what is stated in the scheme or the letter dated February 8, 2010, after having benefited therefrom.
6
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any further order except that only those persons mentioned in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in opposition shall be entitled to pension and not the persons mentioned in paragraph 7 thereof. At the risk of repetition, it is clarified that only those persons who have completed ten years of service after regularization, i.e. with effect from September 24, 2009, shall be entitled to pension and not otherwise.
There will be no further orders as to costs.
(RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J.) tk