Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Chatterjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 January, 2014
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder
WP No. 28664 (W) of 2008
Pradip Chatterjee
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner: Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta
For the respondent no.2: Mr. Swapan Dutta
Mr. Ashit Kumar Chakraborty
Judgment on: 8th January, 2014.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking its interference in a matter relating to his promotion. Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of Dhakuria Cooperative Bank Limited, which is a registered cooperative society. The petitioner joined service in the said Bank initially as an Assistant Accountant. Subsequently, on 1st April, 1995, the petitioner was directed to serve the post of Accountant pending formal promotion to the said post and confirmation of the same. It has been stated by the petitioner that he actually started working as an Accountant on and from 1st April, 1995, with the designation "Accountant (Acting)". It is the case of the petitioner that although he 2 is eligible to be promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Manager, he has not been considered for such promotion, since the year, 2000. The petitioner has also stated in his pleadings that on the basis of certain allegations levelled against him, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated which was subsequently dropped. It is the contention of the petitioner that the service rules which govern his employment, entitle him to be considered for promotion after four years of service in one post. The petitioner has also given reference to various correspondences which took place between him and the Bank till the year 2008, being the year of filing of the instant writ petition. According to the petitioner, having served the post of Accountant for thirteen long years, he has not only been deprived of his promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Manager, he has also not been granted additional increment for having served in one post continuously for eight years without promotion.
Dhakuria Cooperative Bank Limited in its affidavit-in-opposition has raised a preliminary point of maintainability of the writ petition by stating, inter alia, that it was carrying on business as per the licence granted by the Reserve Bank of India, in terms of the Banking Regulation Act. The services of the employees of the Bank are governed by its own service rules which were framed on the basis of a Memorandum of Settlement under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been categorically stated by the concerned Cooperative Bank that there has been no violation of any mandatory provision of any applicable statute in the facts of the instant case. It has further been stated by the Bank that since it did not violate any statutory provisions of law or the principles of 3 natural justice, the instant writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed with cost to be awarded to them. The other point regarding maintainability which has been taken by the Bank is that the writ petition involves highly disputed questions of fact which are required to be adjudicated upon adducing of evidence, which this Court, sitting in its writ jurisdiction, may not entertain.
It is well settled by now thorough several pronouncements that a writ petition is maintainable against a cooperative society even if the society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, it is equally well settled that the writ Court, ordinarily, would not entertain a writ petition moved against a cooperative society in such a fact situation, as presented in the instant case, unless and until the petitioner is able to demonstrate palpably a clear infraction of any statutory provision, which affects his legal rights.
In the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the concerned Cooperative Bank is governed by service rules which were framed on the basis of a Memorandum of Settlement arrived at, by and between the Bank and its employees, under section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since there has been no violation of any statutory provision, this Court, in the facts of the instant case, cannot hold that this writ petition is maintainable.
4
The writ petitioner, however, is not remediless, although his remedies are elsewhere. It will, therefore, be open to the petitioner to move the appropriate forum seeking appropriate reliefs.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) pg.