Sri Dhiman Mukherjee & Anr vs Amrit Kumar Manna & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5664 Cal

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 172 of 2015

                                 Sri Dhiman Mukherjee & anr.
                                             Vs.
                                  Amrit Kumar Manna & ors.


For the State petitioners         :     Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee,
                                                    Sr. Advocate & A.G.P.
                                        Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Advocate,
                                        Mr. Somnath Naskar, Advocate


For the Respondent

Nos.1 to 7                        :     Ms. Kakali Naskar, Advocate


Hearing on                   :    29.08.2023

Judgment on                  :    29.08.2023


DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated January 31,

2014 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A.957 of

2012.

2. The writ petition is at the behest of the State.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits that all

the respondents were engaged as Work Charged employees. Their

appointments were not against any regular sanctioned post. The

respondents are not entitled to absorption/regularisation in view of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 Supreme

Court Cases 1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi

(3) and others).

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State draws the

attention of the Court to the impugned order. He submits that, the

Tribunal held that the contents of a notification dated July 20, 2011

which stipulated the parameters for absorption/regularisation, were not

applicable to the respondents. He submits that, the notification dated

July 20, 2011 was issued in the tune of various pronouncement of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court including that of Umadevi (3).

5. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits

that, none of her clients are interested in contesting the present writ

petition.

6. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, directed regularisation of the

respondents if they satisfied the parameters of regularisation.

7. Of the seven respondents, six of them superannuated from service

on diverse dates and received their superannuation benefits as Work

Charged employees. The second respondent apparently is still in service.

As noted above, all the respondents expressed their desire not to contest

the present writ petition.

8. Umadevi (3) laid down the parameters under which, a request for

regularisation can be considered, if at all. State Government, on

consideration of various authorities of the Supreme Court including

Umadevi (3) issued the notification dated July 20, 2011 governing the

field of regularisation. Such notification stated that regularisation of

Work Charged staff is not possible. The Tribunal, by the impugned order,

found that such notification was not applicable to the respondents. The

reasons prescribed by the Tribunal in our view is contrary to the

observations of Umadevi (3).

9. None of the respondents were appointed to a sanctioned post. None

of the respondents were selected for appointment through a selection

process.

10. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated

January 31, 2014 is set aside.

11. WP.ST 172 of 2015 is allowed without any order as to costs.

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

12. I agree.

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

CHC

CHC