Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sadananda Mondal vs The State Of West on 25 June, 2019
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
1
Sn 25.6.19 W.P. 29184(W) of 2016
2
SADANANDA MONDAL VS. THE STATE OF WEST
BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. Tapas Bhattacharya
Mr. Aviroop Bhattacharya
..for the petitioner
Mr. Swapan Kr. Dutta A.G.P.
Mr. Bipin Ghosh
..for the State
Let the affidavit in opposition
filed by the State respondents be taken on
record.
The petitioner was appointed as a "Casual Jeep Cleaner" by the Block Development Officer, Karimpur-II Development Block, Nadia. Consequent upon issuance of various government orders and circulars, recommendations by the Block Development Officer, Karimpur-II Development Block, were made for enhanced renumeration. The District Panchayat & Rural Development Officer, Karimpur, Nadia was informed that the petitioners along with others were continuously working in the said Block continuously.
2
On January 24, 2015, the Block Development Officer, Karimpur-II Development Block requested the District Magistrate to grant financial aid and other benefits to the petitioner as also other casual/daily rated workers, who had rendered 10 years of service as on April 1, 2010 in terms of G.O. 2966-F- S)P) dated April 23, 2010 issued by the Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department.
On October 25, 2011, the Block Development Officer, Karimpur-II Block, sent a list of the names of casual workers/daily rated workers/contractual workers with necessary documents to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department. In the list the name of petitioner appeared at serial no.2. The same was sent to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal in terms of Memo No.900-H-F(P) dated September 16, 2011.
On April 24, 2013 the Block
Development Officer, Karimpur-II Block
3
informed the District Magistrate &
Collectorate, Nadia that necessary steps
should be taken with regard to the casual workers, whose names had been forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, Audit Branch.
On February 9, 2012 again the name of the petitioner along with other casual/daily rated workers of the said Block was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, Audit Branch.
On May 20, 2013, by a memo no. 4011- F(P), the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, enhanced the remuneration of the said workers in "B" category, who were working for more than 10 years and the enhanced remuneration was fixed at Rs.8,500/- per month.
From November 20, 2013, the Treasury Officer, Tehatta, submitted a contingency wages bill of the establishment at the enhanced rate in terms of the order dated May 4 20, 2013 to the Joint Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Finance Department. The name of the petitioner was mentioned in the said memo. The remuneration of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.8,500/-. The petitioner enjoyed the said remuneration from November, 2013. The said remuneration was stopped suddenly on the basis of the memo dated October 18, 2016 issued by the Joint Director of Treasuries and Accounts, West Bengal, which is quoted below:
"The Treasury Officer,
date.18.10.2016
P.O. Tehatta,
District Nadia.
Sub: payment of wages in r/o
contractual workers at B.D.O. Karimpur- 1&II and E.O. Tehatta.
Ref: His office Memo No.289/TT/dated 3.10.2016.
With reference to his above letter, this is to inform him that the letter issued in the name of his Directorate is unsigned and absolutely fake one of which the consolidated pay has been enhanced and made in respect of nine Casual/Daily Rated/Contractual/Workers attached to the Office of E.O. Tehatta, B.D.O., Karimpur- I&II.
In view of the above, he is directed to (i) make proper estimate of over payment amount so disbursed till this date to all beneficiaries from such fake letter and (ii) B.D.O. and E.O. to be informed of this matter and no payment 5 shall be released till recovery is made and completed and certified.
Joint Director of Treasuries & Accounts, West Bengal."
By a memo dated November 11, 2016, the petitioner was called for a hearing by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehatta, Nadia, it has been specifically pleaded in this writ petition that the petitioner attended such hearing, but no order has yet been passed and the petitioner was forced to sign an undertaking that he would refund the excess amount, paid to him on account of enhancement.
The petitioner submits that for three long years on the basis of the orders issued by the appropriate authorities the enhanced remuneration was given to the petitioner after rigorous checking by the Block Development Officer and other officials.
Suddenly, on the basis of the memo dated October 18, 2016 enhanced remuneration was stopped on the ground that the Joint Director of Treasures & Accounts, West Bengal 6 had intimated the Treasury Officer, Tehatta Treasury, that on the basis of a fake letter enhanced remuneration was given to these workers of Karimpur-I & II Blocks and recovery should be made.
Aggrieved by aforementioned order, the petitioner moved this writ petition.
In support of his contention, the petitioner handed up a copy of the judgement and order passed under similarly circumstances by a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.8008(W) of 2017. By the said judgement and order dated December 18, 2018, the learned single Judge of this Court had directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of West Bengal to consider the case of the petitioner in the said writ petition, namely, Swapan Roy for eligibility in the light of the memorandum dated September 16, 2016 and to allow him such benefits, if he was entitled to.
The petitioner has also handed up a 7 copy of the order dated February 27, 2019, bearing no.1634-RD/Block/28P-09/2017 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to show that pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.8088(W) of 2017, the order impugned to this memo dated October 18, 2016 was set aside, insofar as it related to Swapan Roy.
The petitioner submits that the petitioner was similarly situated as Swapan Roy, the writ petitioner in W.P.8008(W) of 2017 and similar benefits should be given to the petitioner.
It is submitted by Mr. Swapan Kr. Dutta, learned Additional Government Pleader, that once the petitioner had given an undertaking that he would refund the amount over paid then, the petitioner could not challenge the order impugned. He further submitted that enhancement was given on the basis of a fake letter and the authorities had the right to cancel the enhanced remuneration wrongly given to the petitioner. 8
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. I find from the records to this writ petition that the Block Development Officer, Karimpur-II Development, Block, recommended the petitioner along with casual/daily rated workers and found the petitioner eligible for the remuneration as per Government Order dated September 16, 2011. Based on the recommendations of the various authorities the order dated November 20, 2013 was passed allowing enhancement of remuneration to the petitioner on the basis of the concurrence of the Finance Department. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was responsible at any point of time for the incorrect enhancement, as alleged. Moreover, it appears that the memo dated October 18, 2016 was set aside in respect of one Swapan Roy, who had moved this Court under similar circumstances by way of W.P.8008(W) of 2017. The judgement of this Court and the order dated February 27, 2019 issued in respect of the said Swapan Roy are taken on record. 9
Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Principal Secretary to the Department of Panchayat & Rural Development, Government of West Bengal to consider the matter of entitlement of the petitioner to enjoy remuneration at the rate of Rs.8,500/- which was given to the petitioner on and from November, 2013. Similar order has been passed in case of one Swapan Roy by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, whereby the impugned memo dated October 18, 2016 was cancelled in respect of Swapan Roy. The concerned Secretary will decide the matter in accordance with law as also with special reference to the case of Swapan Roy and extend the benefit, if the petitioner is found to be similarly situated at Swapan Roy. The decision so arrived as, will be communicated to the petitioner.
Needless to mention that the order should be a reasoned one. The petitioner or his representative will be given an 10 opportunity to produce all relevant records in support of his claim before the concerned authority.
While disposing of the matter, the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat & Rural Development shall also call for the records available with the Karimpur-II Development Block and other officials, who had recommended the case of the petitioner for enhanced remuneration and on the basis of which the enhanced rate was paid. The hardship caused by the impugned memo should also be taken note of and appropriately dealt with by the concerned authority.
The entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties on priority basis, if the same is applied for. 11
(Shampa Sarkar,J.) 12 13