Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Employees' Association & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 February, 2022
10.02.22
13 Ct. No.11
Sws.M
MAT 1386 of 2021
With
IA. No. CAN 1 of 2022
with
CAN 2 of 2022
West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes Development & Finance Corporation
Employees' Association & Ors.
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Joyak Kumar Gupta
Mr. Susanta Saha
........for the Appellants
Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty
Mr. M. Ahmed
Ms. Amrita De
....for the respondents
Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of
their name/names as printed above in the cause-title.
Under challenge in this appeal is the Judgment
and Order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 18 th
November, 2021 in the writ petition filed by the
present appellants. The present appellants represent
the employees of the West Bengal Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
Development and Finance Corporation (for short
referred to as only the Corporation).
The appellants arrived before the Hon'ble Single
Bench complaining of denial of switchover by the State
Government to the member employees of the appellant
No. 1, from the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF)
Scheme to the General Provident Fund (GPF) or
Pension Scheme.
It is not in dispute that the Corporation and the
service conditions of its employees is under control of
the State Government. In law therefore the
Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India.
It is also not in dispute that similarly
circumstanced employees employed in other
corporations under the State, such as the Calcutta
Tramways Company (CTC) Limited and the North
Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC), have
been conferred the benefit of switchover to the Pension
Scheme. The appellants therefore argue that denial of
switchover is violative of their protection under Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Single Bench rejected the prayer for
switchover on the ground that a policy decision taken
at the appropriate administrative level cannot be
interfered with normally by the Court sitting in Writ
Jurisdiction.
Heard Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants.
Heard Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel
appearing for the Respondent/the Corporation.
Although Affidavit-of-service is filed, none
represents the State-respondents.
This Court is taken to Page 128 of CAN 2 of
2022, which is the application for interim order
connected to this appeal filed by the appellants. From
Page 128 it is disclosed that the Finance Department
has merely expressed its inability to allow the
switchover and has returned the file.
Prima facie it appears from Page 128 (supra)
that the decision making process taken at the
appropriate administrative level of the Finance
Department is cryptic. The purported inability not to
allow the switchover bereft of any reason is akin to a
cloudless sky.
This Court is therefore in requirement of more
cogent answers from the State-respondents. Since the
appellants complain of deprivation of switchover
benefits since 1995 and the writ petition is of 2013,
this Court directs that the matter be listed within the
first three matters under the heading 'Hearing'
(Group - VI) in the Combined Monthly List of April,
2022.
The State-respondents and the respondent-
Corporation shall file their Affidavit-in-Opposition to
CAN 2 of 2022 within a period of three weeks from this
date. Affidavit-in-Reply shall be filed within a week
thereafter.
The direction to exchange Affidavits is
peremptory. At the end of the period granted to
exchange Affidavits, the appellant shall be entitled to
prepare the requisite number of Informal Paper
Book(s) on the basis of materials as available on
record and serve copies in advance to learned
Advocate for the respondents.
Steps taken shall abide by the result of this
appeal.
All parties to act on a server copy of this order
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Krishna Rao, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J)
