Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India And Others vs Naba Kumar Dey And Others on 4 March, 2021
AD 34.
March 4, 2021
SG & subrata bh.
WPCT 1 of 2021
Union of India and others
-versus-
Naba Kumar Dey and others
M/s. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh,
Madhusudan Mukhopadhyay, Advocates
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Amitabha Ghosh,
Sk. Sujauddin, Advocates
... for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Order dated February 05, 2019 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short,
'the Tribunal'), Calcutta Bench, Kolkata in OA
No.350/1484/2016 has been challenged by
filing this writ petition. The Tribunal while
recording its findings noticed that the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been serving in the
Railways on temporary basis since 1991.
Keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court, in paragraph 5 of the
Tribunal's order, it is mentioned hereunder:
"The decision in Umadevi (3) was
intended to put a full stop to the somewhat
pernicious practice of irregularly or illegally
appointing daily-wage workers and
continuing with them indefinitely. In fact,
in para 49 of the report, it was pointed out
that the rule of law requires appointments
to be made in a constitutional manner and
the State cannot be permitted to perpetuate
an irregularity in the matter of public
employment which would adversely affect
those who could be employed in terms of
the constitutional scheme. It is for this
reason that the concept of a one-time
measure and a cut-off date was introduced
in the hope and expectation that the State
would cease and desist from making
irregular or illegal appointments and
instead make appointments on a regular
basis."
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that other similarly situated
employees who were working on temporary basis
were regularised after the record was checked
and they were found medically fit. Fingerprint
documents were not found in the case of the
respondent No.1 whereas in the case of
respondent No.2 the school certificate furnished
by him was found to be false. Hence, they could
not be regularsied.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that ever
since they were engaged in the year 1991, they
are working on regular basis. In case the
petitioners have lost the record, the respondent
No.1 should not be made to suffer. The
particulars of the school in which the
respondent No.2 studied, are as follows:
"Ganendra Shikshaniketan, 44/K/30
Debendra Chandra Dey Street, Calcutta -
15, date of entering-1970, date of leaving-
December, 1975, examination passed in
the year 1979."
The petitioners got verification from a
different school i.e. "Jnanendu Siksha Niketan
High School, 7/1, Kulia Tangra 2nd Lane,
Kolkata-700015" where it has been mentioned
that no record of the respondent No.2 had been
found in the relevant record books. There was
nothing wrong with the certificate as the
respondent No.2 never studied in that school.
After hearing learned counsel for the
are in service with the petitioners since 1991 on
temporary basis, is not in dispute. In case the
record has been lost by the petitioners, the
respondent No.1 cannot be made to suffer. As far
as the respondent No.2 is concerned, apparently
the inquiry was made from a wrong school, as is
evident from the names and addresses of two
schools as mentioned above. He is also working
since the year 1991.
With the aforesaid facts on record, in our
opinion, direction issued by the Tribunal for
regularisation of their services cannot be
interfered with, especially once the admitted case
is that similarly placed employees have been
regularised. The cases of the respondent Nos.1
and 2 were not considered on flimsy grounds.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed
with costs `5,000/- each, to be paid to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2. The same shall be
transferred in their bank accounts alongwith
salary for the month of April, 2021.
( Rajesh Bindal, J.)
(Aniruddha Roy, J. )
