Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Commodities Supply Corporation ... vs Falguni Jana & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 243 Cal

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 243 Cal
Judgement Date : 19 January, 2021

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Commodities Supply Corporation ... vs Falguni Jana & Ors on 19 January, 2021
19.01.2021
Item No. 08 to 12
         15 to 23
Ct. No. 04
PG


                                  F.M.A. 698 of 2019
                                West Bengal Essential
                       Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
                                          Vs.
                                 Falguni Jana & Ors.


                    Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, sr. adv.
                    Mr. Susovan Sengupta
                    Mr. Sanjay Saha
                    Mr. Subhasish Bhattacharya
                    Ms. Sharmila Basu
                                         .....for appellants

                    Mr. Pushpal Chakraborty
                    Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta
                    Mr. Subhajit Das..........for respondents

Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior advocate

appears on behalf of appellants. At the outset he

refers to prayers in the writ petition, more particularly

prayer (a), set out below:

"a) A writ of or in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents, their men, agents, assigns and subordinates to forthwith consider the representations/mass prayers/demand of justice made by the petitioner along with some other similarly placed employees being Annexure "P-8" in accordance with law and on being satisfied to regularize the service of the petitioner appointed on compassionate ground with retrospective effect from 01.04.2010."

He submits, by impugned judgment dated 28 th

February, 2018 regularisation has been directed

usurping administrative power. He then points out

there is also finding that some persons earlier

similarly engaged had been duly regularized, for

application of article 14 in the Constitution of India to

respondents/writ petitioners. Said finding is also

beyond scope of the writ petition. He then proceeds to

further argue on merits.

Interrupting Mr. Bandyopadhyay, we record

our prima facie view, on perusal of the writ petition

and affidavit in opposition. It is a fact that

respondents had made representation, which did not

result in consideration. Secondly, by paragraph 12 in

the affidavit in opposition appellants said:

"12. With regard to statements made in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the said application, I say that the same are mostly matters of record and I deny anything contrary to the admitted records. Even it is assuming but not admitting that any person has been regularized illegally by WBECSC Ltd, the petitioner cannot seek direction upon WBECSC Ltd. to repeat the said illegality for his benefit. In this regard I say that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for negative equality."

The two points taken by Mr. Bandyopadhyay at the

outset, though technical but are likely to be answered

in favour of his clients. We say likely because we have

not yet heard respondents. However, in event the

appeal is allowed on technicality, the consequence

will be that appellants will reject the representation(s)

on decision of policy, had in the meantime, that goes

against the claims of respondents. Respondents

would then be compelled, if they can, to mount fresh

substantial challenge against such probable decision

and would also have to include with the challenge,

contention that earlier appointments were not duly

made. Court is not inclined to compel respondents to

such a course of action, which would also lead to

multiplicity of judicial proceedings. Hence, we require

documents to be produced by appellants to enable us

to pronounce judgment. Mr. Chakraborty, learned

advocate appearing on behalf of respondents points

out from order dated 12th March, 2015 (made in the

writ petition) directing Managing Director of

appellants to file further report, inter alia, indicating

names of Directors of the Corporation at the time

when the perceived irregular regularisation was

allowed and the Managing Director to produce all

papers pertaining to the perceived irregular

regularisation of concerned employees so that

appropriate measures can be taken against wrong

doers even if the regularisation cannot be undone.

The reports filed are not part of the paper book.

Appellants will file supplementary affidavit

furnishing documentary evidence regarding their

contention of earlier irregular regularisation. Copy of

the affidavit must be served on petitioners by 12 th

February, 2021. The affidavit will be accepted on

adjourned date.

List on 18th February, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter