Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dhananjoy Bagdi vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 November, 2022
12. 10.11.2022
Ct. No.6
Tanmoy
M.A.T. 1419 of 2022
Dhananjoy Bagdi
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
IA No: C.A.N. 1 of 2022
Mr. Anjan Dutta, Adv.,
Mr. Hare Krishna Halder, Adv.,
Mr. Debasis Sur, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Sudipto Panda, Adv.,
Ms. Munmun Tewari, Adv.
...for the State.
By consent of the parties, the appeal and the
connected application are taken up together for hearing.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order
dated August 2, 2022, whereby the appellant's writ petition
being WPA 1321 of 2022 was dismissed.
The appellant claims to have worked in the Sahaspur
Gram Panchayat and claims that he is eligible for
regularization as 'Sahayak'. The appellant had first
approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 10973(W) of 2000,
ventilating a grievance regarding non-regularization of his
service. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing
the concerned Block Development Officer (BDO) to consider
the appellant's case for regularization as 'Sahayak'.
The concerned BDO considered the appellant's case
and passed an order dated December 29, 2005 rejecting
the appellant's claim on the ground that there was no
document on record which would show that the appellant
attended the Office of the Gram Panchayat or received any
remuneration from that Office. It was also not shown that
he had rendered continuous service for more than three
years. It was also not established that he was ever engaged
in a sanctioned vacant post.
The appellant challenged the said order of the BDO by
filing W.P. No. 1950(W) of 2006. Such writ petition was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a judgment and
order dated July 28, 2011. The appellant carried the
matter in appeal by filing F.M.A. 3541 of 2013. The
Division Bench allowed the appeal by a judgment and
order dated May 7, 2014 with the following observations:-
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the opinion that the certificate granted by the concerned Gram
Panchayat had not been taken into consideration by the Block
Development Officer while passing the order dated 29th December,
2005. What is the evidential value of it was required to be
considered. Accordingly, we direct to the Block Development
Officer to consider the same.
Accordingly, the Block Development Officer is directed to
reconsider the representation made by the petitioner in accordance
with law after considering the certificate and other aspect as has
been raised before him.
Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the Block
Development Officer and the Single Bench are set aside and the
matter remitted to the Block Development Officer to consider the
whole matter afresh."
Alleging inaction on the part of the concerned BDO in
not acting in terms of the Division Bench's order, the
appellant filed yet another writ petition being WPA 18447
of 2019. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment
and order dated August 10, 2021 by directing the
concerned BDO to consider the matter of the appellant's
regularization within a stipulated time period.
Pursuant to such order, the concerned BDO passed
an order dated December 16, 2021 rejecting the appellant's
claim for regularization. Such order was challenged by the
appellant before the learned Single Judge in the present
round of litigation.
The learned Judge observed that the concerned BDO
has passed a detailed order with reasons. No documents
could be produced which would show that the appellant
ever worked at the concerned Panchayat's Office or ever
received any remuneration from such Office.
It appears that past Secretaries and Pradhans of the
concerned Panchayat could not identify the appellant. The
learned Judge finally opined that disputed questions of fact
being involved, the writ Court could not conveniently
adjudicate such disputes. Accordingly, the writ petition
was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We see
no apparent infirmity in the order assailed before us.
Indeed, disputed questions of fact are involved. Without
the appellant producing documents to even prima facie
show that he is eligible for regularization, we are unable to
grant any relief to him. We may have full sympathy for the
appellant. However, sympathy cannot be the basis for
granting relief. Unless the appellant can establish his right
to regularization by producing cogent evidence, we cannot
impose on the State the burden of regularizing him in
service as the same would have financial implication for
the Public Exchequer.
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal being M.A.T. 1419
of 2022 and the connected application being IA No: C.A.N.
1 of 2022 are dismissed. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
Needless to say, this order will not preclude the
appellant from approaching any other forum, in
accordance with law, for redressal of his grievance.
Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties upon
compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
