Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rkd vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 June, 2022
W.P.A. 16093 of 2017
119 23.06.2022
to Ct.15
121 Sri Surajit Banerjee
rkd -vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
&
W.P.A. 16094 of 2017
Sri Partha Sarathi Bhattachariya
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
&
W.P.A. 16096 of 2017
Sri Subrata Paul
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Usha Maiti,
Ms. Anita Khatri,
Mr. Sakya Maity
....for the petitioners.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Mr. Kartick Chandra Kapas
....for the State in W.P.A. 16093 of 2017.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Mr. Subhendu Roychoudhury
....for the State in W.P.A. 16094 of 2017.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Md. Abu Reja Jaglul Kabir
....for the State in W.P.A. 16096 of 2017.
Three writ petitions are taken up together
since identical issue is involved therein.
The matters relate to grant of benefit of
compassionate appointment which was ultimately
accorded in favour of the three writ petitioners from
later date pursuant to appoint letters dated
January, 2015.
2
Ms. Maiti, learned advocate representing all
the three writ petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners were initially appointed on the death of
their fathers in the year 2007 on contractual basis
in Baidyabati Municipality (for short "said
Municipality"). Since such appointment petitioners
have been discharging their duties and according to
the petitioners such appointment was accorded to
them under compassionate ground not on
substantive basis but on contractual basis. Since
grant of substantive appointment in favour of the
petitioners on compassionate ground was hanging
for longtime which compelled one of the writ
petitioners, namely, Subrata Paul to file a writ
petition being the W.P. 12701(W) of 2011.
A coordinate Bench while disposing of the
writ petition directed the concerned respondent
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment in permanent post within a particular
time. Pursuant to such direction of the coordinate
Bench, the Director of Local Bodies, Government of
West Bengal being respondent no.2 passed order
dated 19th November, 2014 thereby directing the
said municipality to grant approval in favour of the
writ petitioners on compassionate ground from
their respective dates of joining the posts under
Baidyabati Municipality subject to verification of
necessary records. Accordingly, all the three
petitioners were appointed in the post of teacher in
primary schools administered and run by the said
municipality and in this regard appointment letters
were issued in favour of them in the month of
January, 2015.
Petitioners have claimed benefit on
substantive appointment which was ultimately
accorded with effect from January, 2015 should be
extended from the date of their initial appointment
on contractual basis in the year, 2007.
It has been argued on behalf of the
petitioners by Ms. Maiti that the coordinate Bench
while disposing of the previous writ petition on 17th
June, 2013 directed the respondent authorities to
actively consider the claim of the petitioners for
substantive appointment and in pursuant thereto
the respondent no.2 while taking decision in favour
of the petitioners directed the concerned authority
of the said municipality to accord approval on
substantive basis with effect from respective dates
of joining in the post under the said municipality.
It is argued that considering such direction
as contained in the order dated 19th November,
2014 of the respondent no.2, the approval of
appointment on substantive basis ought to have
been accorded in favour of the petitioners with
effect from the date when they were appointed on
contractual basis. In support of the same reliance
has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court, reported in
2003 SCC Online (Raj) 75 (Dharmveer Sen -vs-
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation &
Ors.).
Ms. Bhattacharya, learned senior
Government advocate appears on behalf of the
State respondents and has defended the decision
taken by the respondent no.2 as contained in the
order dated 19th November, 2014. It has also been
argued on behalf of the State respondents that the
appointment of the petitioners on contractual basis
should not be construed in a way which would
confer right upon them to claim benefit of
appointment on permanent basis with effect from
2007. According to the State respondents a
decision has been taken by the respondent no.2
which permitted the municipality to give
appointment in favour of the petitioners on
compassionate ground prospectively and
accordingly appointment has been given in favour
of the petitioners by issuing appointment letters in
the month of January, 2015 with a rider that the
petitioners have to obtain JB Training within five
years from the dates of their respective
appointment.
This Court has heard the learned advocates
representing the parties and also perused the
relevant materials on record.
It is indisputable that after the death of
employees in-harness who were working in the said
municipality the three writ petitioners were
appointed on contractual basis on consolidated pay
in the year 2007. The attention of this Court has
also been drawn to one letter dated 8th September,
2010 issued by the Chairman of the Municipality
addressed to the Deputy Director of Local Bodies,
Chinsurah, Hooghly wherein it has been admitted
that thirty three candidates were working on daily
wage basis under compassionate ground however it
is not clear whether the appointment of the
petitioners on contractual basis with effect from
2007 has been treated as an appointment under
compassionate ground or not since no one is
representing the said municipality today in spite of
notice.
This Court has also found from the order
passed by the respondent no.2 wherein the
concerned authority of the said municipality was
directed to accord approval in favour of the
petitioners with effect from their respective dates of
joining. Such direction as contained in the order
dated 19th November, 2014 has raised a confusion
whether appointment of the petitioners on
contractual basis with effect from 2007 is to be
reckoned or not. If it is found after considering the
views of the said municipality that the petitioners
were appointed on contractual basis in the year
2007 under compassionate ground in that event
their claim for granting benefit of approval on
substantive basis with effect from initial dates of
appointment needs to be considered accordingly.
In view of aforesaid facts, this Court directs
the Director of Local Bodies being the respondent
no.2 to consider the entitlement of the petitioners
to get the benefit of approval of appointment with
effect from the dates when they were appointed on
contractual basis by passing a reasoned order
within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of this order after granting
opportunity of hearing of the petitioners or their
representatives.
Before taking decision the respondent no.2
is further directed to ascertain from the said
municipality whether the appointment of the
petitioners on contractual basis which was made in
the year 2007 was under compassionate ground or
not.
The decision to be taken by the respondent
no.2 shall be communicated to the petitioners
within one week thereafter.
The petitioners shall be at liberty to rely
upon all the relevant documents including the
judgment of the Court which has been placed
before this Court today before the respondent no.2
at the time of hearing.
With the above direction the three writ
petitions stand disposed of.
However, There shall be no order as to
costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order,
if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
