Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manab Maity vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 17 February, 2022
17.02.2022
Item no.5
Court No.6.
AB
F.M.A. 703 of 2021
With
I A CAN 1 of 2022
Manab Maity
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Others
Mr. Pankaj Halder,
Mr. Sanatan Panja,
Ms. Rama Halder,
Mr. Tapas Manna ....for the Appellant.
Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta,
Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey ....for the State.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
application are taken up together for hearing.
This appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner
against an order dated March 4, 2021, whereby
W.P.A. 25409 of 2018 was dismissed.
The appellant says that he was engaged as a
Supervisor/Paymaster of Natshal-1 Gram Panchayet
for a scheme called "Re-excavation of Banipota Khal"
on January 18, 2000. On January 3, 2014, he was
engaged as a contractual employee to generally
supervise the works of Natshal-1 Gram Panchayet. He
was suddenly disengaged on July 6, 2018. He relies
on a Memorandum bearing no.9008-F(P) dated
September 16, 2011, issued by the Finance
Department of the Government of West Bengal, to
2
argue that he is entitled to carry on with his job till the
age of sixty years as he is covered by the said
Memorandum.
Learned Counsel appearing for the State says
that this Memorandum would not apply to the
appellant. Certain factual parameters have to be
satisfied by the appellant before he can come within
the purview of the said Memorandum.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we
are of the view that a proper Officer in the
Administration should consider the appellant's claim
based on the aforesaid Memorandum dated September
16, 2011, issued by the State Government.
Accordingly, we grant liberty to the appellant to
make a comprehensive representation to the District
Panchayet and Rural Development Officer, Purba
Medinipur, being the respondent no.3 herein, within a
period of two weeks from date. The appellant may
annex copies of judgments of Court to the
representation. If such representation is made within
the time indicated, the respondent no.3 shall take a
reasoned decision thereon in accordance with law and
applicable circulars/notifications within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of the
representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the appellant or his authorized representative and any
other persons, who may be affected by the order of the
respondent no.3.
We are told that the Gram Panchayet had
informed the learned Single Judge that during the
pendency of the writ petition, another person has been
appointed in the post in respect of which the writ
petitioner was disengaged. Such person must be given
an opportunity of hearing by the respondent no.3
before he decides the appellant's representation finally.
The decision so taken shall be communicated to the
appellant within a week from the date of the decision.
If the respondent no.3 finds merit in the claim of the
appellant, necessary consequential orders may be
passed.
We have not gone into the merits of the
appellant's claim. The respondent no.3 shall decide the
appellant's claim in accordance with law.
Since we have not called for affidavits, the
allegations in the stay petition are deemed not to be
admitted by the respondents.
FMA 703 of 2021 along with IA CAN 1 of 2022
is, accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance
with all the necessary formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
