Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Nantosh Kumar Chatterjee vs Calcutta State on 10 July, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1 08 10.07.2013
pg W.P.19037(W) of 2013 (Nantosh Kumar Chatterjee vs. Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors.) Mr. Manas Kr. Ghosh Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu)......for the petitioner Mr. Pantu Deb Roy Mr. Siddhartha Ruj....for the CSTC Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he will not press the prayer for the petitioner's absorption in regular service under the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereafter the 'Corporation'). It is further submitted by him that the Managing Director of the Corporation may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18th June, 2013 in the light of the order passed by him on 19th March, 2013 while disposing of the claim of one other employee of the Corporation similarly situated like the petitioner, viz. Shibaji Chatterjee.
It appears from the order dated 19th March, 2013 that the Managing Director of the Corporation while declining the prayer of regularisation made by Shri Shibaji Chatterjee observed that "Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above and present recruitment scenario I am constrained to decline the prayer of regularization but I am inclined to provide them the 2 minimum daily wages as would be computed on the initial basic pay of the driver plus allowances divided by 26 days in a month in anticipation of the approval of the Corporation Board", and that the revised wages would be effective from 1st April, 2013.
Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation, does not seriously oppose the prayer of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the Managing Director of the Corporation to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18th June, 2013 (annexure- P4 to the writ petition) in accordance with law, and in the light of the order dated 19th March, 2013 passed by him referred to above, as early as possible but not later than four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.
(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)