Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Union Of India & Ors vs Ashis Kumar Ghosh) on 16 August, 2019
1
5
16.08.2019
rrc
W.P.C.T. 64 of 2019
(Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashis Kumar Ghosh)
Mr. Jayanta Banerjee
Mr. Kushi Prasun Chatterjee
.....For the petitioners
Mr. Joyak Gupta
Mr. Brotindra Mullick
......For the respondent
O.A. 1410 of 2018 presented before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench by the original applicant (hereafter the respondent) was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2019.
The claim of the respondent for back-wages, between the dates of dismissal and reinstatement in service, was spurned by the tribunal. Such an order is the subject matter of challenge, at the instance of the respondent in W.P.C.T. 48 of 2019. By an order dated 12th July, 2019, the writ petition was admitted and the parties were directed to exchange their affidavits. We are informed that the respondents in such writ petition are yet to file their affidavits-in-opposition.
Since such writ petition is pending, we are not presently called upon to examine the correctness of that part of the order.
2The respondent had also made a prayer before the tribunal that his name ought to be included in a select list/panel dated 14th July, 2015. It is noted that the name of the respondent had not been so included because of pendency of an interlocutory application before this Court, being C.A.N. 4861 of 2013. The tribunal in the impugned judgment and order noted that by filing C.A.N. 4861 of 2013 the applicants had sought for a review of an order dated 18th December, 2012 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of W.P.C.T. 361 of 2003. The coordinate Bench by its order dated 18th December, 2012 having dismissed C.A.N. 4861 of 2013, the tribunal was of the view that the respondents in the original application ought to have included the name of the original applicant in such select list/panel. The following direction was accordingly passed: -
"However, in regard to the prayer of the applicant for consequential benefits following his reinstatement, in view of the specific explicit stipulation in the panel dated 14.07.2015 that it was provisional subject to interpolation of applicant's name which could not be included in the select list due to non-receipt of decision of the Hon'ble High Court in CAN No. 4861/2013, which stipulation made it imperative for the Respondents to interpolate the applicant suitably as per seniority in the panel once the application was decided, we direct the authorities to interpolate the name of the applicant and to accord appropriate financial benefits by refixing his pay with effect from the date his juniors were allowed such promotion, grant him arrears of salary and revise his pension accordingly. The 3 benefits be extended to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order."
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the petitioners seeks to join issue by referring to paragraph 6 of the writ petition. He submits that the tribunal was in error in making the direction quoted supra having regard to such disclosure.
Responding to our query, Mr. Banerjee has frankly submitted that no reply affidavit was filed before the tribunal. We have been informed by Mr. Gupta, learned advocate for the respondent that the tribunal had decided O.A. 1410 of 2018 after giving direction for exchange of affidavits. This statement has not been disputed before us. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners seek to raise a factual issue before us for the first time, without availing the liberty to raise it before the tribunal at the first instance by filing a reply affidavit or even by applying for a review, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.) 4