Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sisir Kumar Sen vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
W.P.S.T. 119 of 2013
Sisir Kumar Sen
VS.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rabin Gharai,
Ms. Soma Chakraborty
Advocates
For the State : Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya
Sr. Government Advocate
Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
Hearing on : 03.07.2023
Judgment on : 03.07.2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated May
17, 2012 passed by the West Bengal State Administrative
Tribunal in O.A.3479 of 2008.
2. A number of applicants were before the Tribunal in
O.A.3479 of 2008. Only the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the
impugned order.
3. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal did not find
any error in the reasoned order dated October 29, 2007
negating the claim of the writ petitioner for New/Intermediate
Selection Grade (N.I.S.G.) in the scale pay of Rs.370-10-415-
535 (unrevised) plus other usual allowances as admissible as
per rules with effect from April 15, 1977 to March 31, 1981.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner
submits that, similarly situated and circumstanced employees
as that of the writ petitioner were granted N.I.S.G. benefits. He
draws the attention of the Court to an order dated August 30,
1990 passed in C.O. No.13144(W) of 1986. He submits that,
the direction for grant of N.I.S.G. benefits to the writ
petitioners there was acted upon by the State. The writ
petitioner being similarly situated and circumstanced should
be afforded the same benefits. In support of such contention
he relies upon (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 24 (Maharaj
Krishan Bhatt And Another vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir And Others) and AIR 1987 Supreme Court 820
(Abid Hussain and others vs. Union of India and others).
5. Learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the
State draws attention of the Court to the contents of the
reasoned order dated August 29, 2007. She submits that, the
writ petitioner is required to satisfy the conditions of the
Government Order No.6983-F dated October 3, 1975. She
submits that, the writ petitioner received benefits of the Career
Advancement Scheme (CAS) twice. A period less than four
years was available from the date of superannuation for the
writ petitioner to receive any other benefit. She submits that,
the writ petitioner after availing of the CAS benefits is not
entitled to N.I.S.G. benefits.
6. The writ petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of
O.A.752 of 2006 which was disposed of by the Tribunal on
July 24, 2006 requiring the authorities to consider and
dispose of a representation made by the petitioner by a
reasoned order after giving an opportunity to the writ
petitioner being heard.
7. Authorities acted on such order dated July 24, 2006. The
authorities gave hearing to the original applicants of O.A.752
of 2006 and passed an order dated August 29, 2007. The writ
petitioner was one of the persons who was heard by the
authorities and is governed by the reasoned order dated
August 29, 2007.
8. The authorities passing the order dated August 29, 2007,
took note of the cadre strength in which the writ petitioner
was working at the material point of time. The authorities took
note of the promotions and benefits given under the N.I.S.G. to
the persons in the same cadre. The authorities took note of
G.O. No.6983-F dated October 3, 1975. The authorities found
the writ petitioner not to be fulfilling condition (iii) of the
Government Order dated October 3, 1975 and therefore, not
entitled to the N.I.S.G. benefits. Moreover, the authorities
noted that the writ petitioner availed of C.A.S. benefits of 20
years of completion of service and a further C.A.S. benefit on
completion of 25 years of service. The date of superannuation
of the writ petitioner was taken into account to return a
finding that four years of period of service was not left with the
petitioner and therefore, the writ petitioner was not fulfilling
condition (iii) of the Government Order dated October 3, 1975.
9. The writ petitioner along with others approached the
learned Tribunal challenging the reasoned order dated August
29, 2007 before the Tribunal being O.A. No.3479 of 2008
which was dismissed by the impugned order dated May 17,
2012.
10. The factual scenario so far as writ petitioner is concerned
as noted in the reasoned order dated August 29, 2007 is not
being disputed on behalf of the writ petitioner.
11. The writ petitioner joined as Lower Division Clerk on
September 16, 1965 with his date of birth on January 12,
1943. He joined as Accounts Clerk on February16, 1982 and
was posted as Cashier-cum-Store Keeper pursuant to the
order dated August 17, 1985. He joined as Cashier on
September 19, 1985. He was afforded 20 years C.A.S. benefits
with effect from April 1, 1989 and 25 years C.A.S. benefits
with effect from April 1, 2007. He was found to be
superannuated on January 31, 2003.
12. The fact that the claim of the petitioner is governed by
Government Order No.6983-F dated October 3, 1975 is
admitted at the bar. It is also admitted at the bar that, four
conditions are required to be fulfilled by any individual to
receive the benefits thereunder. Such four conditions are as
follows:-
"(i) He has a good record and is
fit for promotion as selection grade.
(ii) He has practically reached the
maximum of his scales of pay.
(iii) He has left with only four (4)
years of service before retirement.
(iv) He has not in his career
earned any promotion or got any
selection grade."
13. It would appear from the factual matrix as adumbrated
above, the writ petitioner does not fulfil condition (iii) of the
Government Order No.6983-F dated October 3, 1975. One of
the grounds for rejection of the representation of the writ
petitioner is non-fulfilment of condition (iii).
14. Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another (supra), considers
a case where, extension of benefit to similarly situated person
was noted and granted. In the facts of the present case, the
writ petitioner did not establish himself to be similarly situated
or circumstanced as that of the other writ petitioners who
were afforded the benefits by the High Court in the order dated
August 30, 1990. Such order, however, does not allude to any
of the factual matrix as to the entitlement of the writ
petitioners therein. Therefore, it would be presumptuous on
the part to consider the writ petitioner as similarly situated
circumstanced as that of the writ petitioners in C.O.13144(W)
of 1986.
15. The ratio of Abid Hussain and others (supra), in our
humble view are not attracted in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. There an issue of overtime allowance for
extra duty was involved. Benefit of such order was extended to
all employees who retired and did not retire standing as that of
the petitioner was granted. Again, the writ petitioner before us
cannot obtain the benefit of the High Court's order dated
August 30, 1990 passed in C.O.13144(W) of 1986 without
establishing that the present writ petitioner is similarly
situated and circumstanced as that of the writ petitioners
involved in the other writ petition.
16. In view of the discussions above, we find no material
irregularity in the impugned order of the
Tribunal warranting our interference.
17. In such circumstances, W.P.S.T.119 of 2013 is
dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
18. I agree.
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)
CHC
