Supreme Court of India
State Fishery Officers ... vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 21 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 1997 SC 211, 1997 SCC (L&S) 1003, (1997) 3 SCALE 357, (1997) 3 SCR 322, (1997) 2 SCT 740, (1997) 2 SERV LR 510, 1997 (9) SCC 65, (1997) 1 LAB LJ 1203, (1997) 76 FAC LR 461, (1997) 2 SCJ 9, (1997) 2 ANDH LT 29, (1998) 1 SERV LJ 153, (1997) 4 JT 304, (1997) 3 SUPREME 465, (1997) 3 SCR 322 (SC), (1997) 4 JT 304 (SC)
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, K.T. Thomas
PETITIONER: STATE FISHERY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,WEST BENGAL & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R This special leave petition arises from the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, made on December 12,1996 in case No. TA- 268/96. the petitioners had a dialogue with the Government of West Bengal to revise the service conditions of the employees in the Fishery Department , namely, Assistant Fishery officers, Fishery Extension Officers etc. w.e.f April 1, 1961. There was an agreement reached between the Government and the Union of the first petitioner. Subsequently the Government have issued orders giving all the benefits except the monetary benefits from April 1, 1961 to April 1, 1981 Prospectively. The petitioners have filed the petition in the Tribunal seeking direction for payment of arrears on the premise that it was tripaartite agreement and, therefore, the Government is bound by the undertaking given in the agreement. The Tribunal has perused the record and stated thus, "It appears from the documents on record that the Finance Department was a party not a to such decisions. Nor does it appear that subsequently concurrence of the Finance Department was obtained in this connection. Besides , it does not appear that the decision were translated in to any formal Government order. Be that as it may, it will not proper to grant such financial benefits in favour of Assistant Fishery Officers, Fishery Extension officers, etc. with effect from 1.4.1961 while while other actions of the Government where to take effect only from 1.4.1981"
In view of the above finding and in view of the policy decision taken by the Government, it cannot be said that the decision of the Government is arbitrary. No direction can be given to the Government to grant the monetary benefits contrary to its policy which falls within the realm of the executive policy decision.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.