Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
S.K. Sarifuddin & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 29 August, 2023
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
WP.ST 415 of 2010
S.K. Sarifuddin & Ors.
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Harishankar Chattopadhyay,
Mr. Chittranjan Panda, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, AGP
: Mr. Somnath Naskar, Advocates
Heard & Judgment on : August 29, 2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated June 17, 2010
passed in OA 1532 of 2009 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.
2. By the impinged order, the Tribunal, rejected the claim of the writ
petitioners for absorption/regularization in Government service.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that,
subsequent to the finding rendered by the Tribunal with regard to quality
of engagement of the writ petitioners, as casual master roll workers, it
WP.ST 415 of 2010
does not lie in the mouth of the State to contend that the writ petitioners
were contractual workers.
4. Learned advocate relies upon (2023) SCC Online 771 [Om
Prakash Banerjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.], (2013) 11
SCR 1 [Nihal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.] and an
unreported decision of the co-ordinate Bench in WP No. 15434(W) of
2015 [Arup Kumar Roy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.] and
submits that Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) &
Ors. [2006(4) SCC 1] is not an impediment for grant of the prayer for
absorption/regularization to the writ petitioners.
5. Learned advocate for the writ petitioners draws the attention of the
Court to a writing dated August 14, 2009 and to the annexures thereof.
He submits that a section of the employees, casual/master roll workers
were absorbed. The writ petitioners are similarly situated and
circumstanced as those persons and should be given the similar facilities.
6. State is represented.
7. By the impugned order the Tribunal returned a finding and the writ
petitioners 'were engaged as casual master roll workers without having
any sanctioned post against such engagement and without following any
due selection process.'
8. The Tribunal proceeded to take note of the pronouncement of
Umadevi (3) (supra) and found that the writ petitioners could not be
granted the relief of absorption/regularization as, the writ petitioners were
engaged without following the due selection process and without any
sanctioned posts.
9. The co-ordinate Bench in Arup Kumar Roy (supra) considered a
factual situation, which is completely different to those obtaining in the
WP.ST 415 of 2010
present case. The coordinate Bench noted that, peculiar situation may
arise not forseen by the Judges pronouncing the judgment in Uma Devi
(3) (supra). Noting the facts of that case before the co-ordinate Bench,
the Court held that, the writ petitioners before such Court were willing to
work and was not allowed to work. In such context, the continuity of their
services was taken into consideration. Moreover, the initial appointments
of the writ petitioners therein were valid and were declared to be so as
opposed to irregular initial appointments spoken of in Uma Devi (3)
(supra).
10. Nihal Singh (supra) considered a situation of grant of absorption to
persons who were recruited for the purpose of combating terrorism
prevailing in the State of Punjab at that material point of time. In the
context of utilization of services of such persons to combat terrorism, the
Supreme Court observed that, the necessity for appointment of such
persons was felt by the State. Therefore, the State appointed such
persons. Therefore, it was not within the domain of the State to contend
that there was no sanctioned posts in respect of such appointment.
Factual scenario again is different in the present case.
11. In Om Prakash Banerjee (supra), the Supreme Court noted that
the High Court in its order dated September 3, 2010 recorded the
submission of the authorities that resolution pertaining to the absorption of
the writ petitioners therein was already in place and that the same was
sent for approval. Such a factual scenario is not obtaining so far as the writ
petitioners are concerned.
12. The writ petitioners fall foul in the parameters laid down in
Umadevi (3) (supra). They were not appointed to any sanctioned post
nor were they appointed by a selection process.
WP.ST 415 of 2010
13. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the
impugned order.
14. WP.ST 415 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed without any order as
to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
15. I agree
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Dd
