Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jagannath Mahata vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 October, 2023
10.10.23
54 Ct. No.25
Sws.M
WPA 14398 of 2022
Jagannath Mahata
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sankar Banerjee
....for the petitioner
Mr. Somnath Ganguli
Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
...for the State
The petitioner was engaged as a daily rated worker
in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhargram,
Sadar. The petitioner was doing the duty/job of a
'receiving clerk'. The petitioner got his wages time to
time from different available contingency funds of the
district. The petitioner was not engaged against any
permanent vacancy.
Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be
considered for any suitable job as a casual worker even
if the job of the petitioner as a 'receiving clerk' is no
longer available. The petitioner has visited the office of
the SDO on several occasions since June 2022.
However, the petitioner has not received his wages since
June, 2022 and was also not allowed to perform his
duty as a 'receiving clerk'. Initially, a Report on Affidavit
was filed by the District Magistrate,
Jhargram/respondent No. 3. It appears from the said
Report that the petitioner has prayed for permanent
absorption. However, there is no scheme for such
absorption. Without applying through proper selection
process the petitioner cannot be absorbed.
No appointment/engagement letter was ever
issued to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was found
to be irregular and was also found to have created
trouble at the office premises the petitioner was not
thought to be 'fit' as a daily rated worker. The petitioner
was allowed to continue with his work till June, 2022,
on humanitarian grounds.
After filing of the writ petition, the petitioner did
not attend the office. Therefore, it was not possible for
the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner from
July, 2022 onwards.
The attendance sheet of the petitioner for June,
2022 is also annexed to the Report by the respondent
No. 3.
Since the petitioner is a physically handicapped
person, this Court by an order dated August 24, 2023
directed the respondent No. 4/SDO to give a hearing to
the petitioner and consider his case sympathetically.
In compliance of the order passed by this Court a
hearing was given to the petitioner on September 15,
2023. After discontinuation of the petitioner's service
since June 2022, the work of the 'receiving clerk' was
allotted to two persons one of whom is working as LDC
since February 2017. The same work has also been
allotted to another permanent employee who has been
appointed since 1986.
From the Report filed by the SDO it appears that
there is no requirement of casual employee at the said
office any longer. Therefore, the petitioner could not be
considered for any further engagement.
Mr. Banerjee places reliance on an unreported
judgment by a Co-ordinate Bench passed in WP(C) No.
26934 of 2022 (Tintu K. & Anr. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. ) at the High Court of Kerala. In that case the
petitioners were engaged after a due process of selection
and they were not back door entrants. It was held that
even though the petitioners were contractual employees,
they were entitled to a notice with regard to
unsatisfactory nature of their service during the period
of their contract. Their services could be terminated only
on a finding of the unsatisfactory nature of their
performance. In that case since such findings were
absent, it was held that the petitioners could not be sent
out of service on the ground of unsatisfactory
performance, by the authorities.
In the present case, the petitioner was a daily
rated worker. He was not a contractual employee whose
contract was for a stipulated period pursuant to a
scheme. There are no Government orders with regard to
the continuance of temporary employees and
contractual employees during the covid period. The
engagement was not done after a due selection process.
This Court finds that the decision of Tintu K.
(supra) does not aid the case of the petitioner in any
manner.
The petitioner was a daily rated worker and he has
been discontinued from service since he failed to attend
his duty/absented himself frequently. There is no
perversity in the decision making process of the
respondent authority.
According, WPA 14398 of 2022 is dismissed.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
Hon'ble Court.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if
applied for, be made available to the parties subject to
compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Lapita Banerji, J)
