Sukanta Dehari & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2906 Cal

25.04.2023           IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
   DL-7           CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
   (PP)                   APPELLATE SIDE
                              WPA 5229 of 2023

                         Sukanta Dehari & Ors.
                                  Vs.
                     The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                   Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee,
                   Mr. Sayan Banerjee
                                            ....for the petitioners.

                   Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
                   Mr. Mrinal Kanti Biswas
                                                           ....for the State.


                  The petitioners claim to be contractually engaged

             pursuant to a notification dated January 11, 2019

             issued by the Commissioner, Department of Food &

             Supplies,     Government       of    West     Bengal.      The

             petitioners      were   engaged       as    Paddy    Purchase

             Personnel (PPPs) on purely contractual basis on and

             from January 1, 2019 or their actual date of joining

             till April 30, 2019. The candidates who were eligible

             to   apply    were      unemployed         youths,   'Yuvasree'

             beneficiaries,     self-help        group     members      and

             MGNREGA job workers at centralised procurement

             centres/district purchase camps.              The petitioners

             performed their jobs from their date of appointment

             till April, 2019.       Thereafter, the petitioners were

             disengaged due to expiry of the period of their

             contractual term.
                          2




       Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners submits that since the job of

the PPPs are perennial in nature they should have

been engaged continuously.                  The work of PPPs

included      verification     of    documents        of   farmers,

entering purchase data, preparation of muster rolls

etc.


       He relies on a judgment reported in (2009) 6

SCC 611 (Mohd. Abdul Kadir and another vs.

Director General of Police, Assam and others) in

support of his contention that even if an ad hoc

appointment is made under a scheme and in

accordance with a selection process described in a

scheme, the Supreme Court held that there was no

reason why the candidates appointed under the

scheme should not be continued as long as the

scheme continues. Ad hoc appointments under the

schemes are normally coterminous with the scheme

(subject     to   medical      or    disciplinary     grounds    or

unsatisfactory service or attainment of normal age of

retirement being reasons for earlier termination).

       Ms.    Chaitali       Bhattacharya,       Learned     Senior

Government Advocate submits that the petitioners

were employed purely on contractual basis and as

such,      have   no     legal      right   to   be    re-engaged.
                     3




Furthermore, there was no continuous scheme and

the engagement of PPPs were seasonal.

     Considering the rival submissions of the parties

and the materials placed on record, this Court is of

the view that the petitioner were appointed on purely

contractual basis for a few months in the year 2019.

Thereafter, the engagement of the petitioner were

terminated due to efflux of time. The petitioners made

representation in 2019 and thereafter in 2021.      The

petitioners after making representation in 2021 chose

to file the instant writ petition on February 17, 2023.

The petitioners have no legal right to be continuously

engaged as PPPs after being engaged for a few months

in 2019 pursuant to a temporary scheme.             The

scheme itself was temporary in nature and the

petitioners were engaged till such time the scheme

continued.

     The decision of Mohd. Abdul Kadir (supra) is not

applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said

case, the appellants were ex-servicemen who were

appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis in a scheme

formulated by the Government of India being the

Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme (PIF

Scheme).     The scheme was extended from time to

time. The appointments of the petitioners were ad hoc

in nature, but such appointments were against
                           4




additional sanctioned posts by the President of India

under the PIF Scheme. Under the said scheme, the

Government of India agreed to reimburse the cost of

pay and allowances in the additional posts (which

were to be filled by ex-servicemen) in respect of all the

expenditure incurred by the State for appointment of

staff for the additional posts in the PIF Scheme. There

was no issue of contractual engagement for a few

months being discussed in the said case.

     Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said

judgment does not in any way aid the case of the writ

petitioners.

     In the light of the discussions hereinabove, this

Court is of the view that the petitioners do not have a

legal right which they can claim to be violated by the

State respondents.

In such circumstances, WPA 5229 of 2023 is

dismissed.

Since no affidavits have been directed to be

exchanged in the writ petition, the allegations

contained therein are deemed not to have been

admitted by the respondents.

All parties shall act on the server copies of

this order duly downloaded from the official

website of this Hon'ble Court.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties upon

compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Lapita Banerji, J.)