Order The petitioners, in the present case, are all employees attached to Family Welfare Centres maintained by the Indian Red Cross Society, West Bengal Branch commonly known as 'Urban Centres'. The petitioners are described as a class as 'staff employed in Family Welfare Planning Centres under vuluntary organisations. The present writ application involves such employees of six 'Urban Centres'. 2. Case as made out on behalf of the petitioners is that the expenditures of such centres are met out of grants, provided by the Central Government, but disbursed through State Government's Health Departments; these centres had been created for the purpose of implementation of Family Welfare Programme, which involves mother and child care, welfare and birth control programmes; permanent method of implementation of such programme including surgical operations, vasectomy, Leproscopic operations, Sterilization, Suboctomy etc., whereas temporary methods mainly comprised motivating people at large and distributing Nirodhs, Pills etc. for implementation of such programme; permanent methods, which require operations are permitted only in the case of Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Institutions approved by the Director of Health Services; the petitioners' centres have neither any authority nor arrangement to implement any permanent programme but whenever a case comes the same is referred to Hospitals for necessary steps; the payments of salaries and other financial benefits to the petitioners have not been regular although such payments were supposed to be made out of grants, provided by the Central Government; by a memorandum dated 19th December, 1972 issued under the signature of the Dy. Secretary, the Governor directed, in consonance with the directives of the Government of India that staff employed in such centres would be entitled to get same pay and allowances as their counterparts under the State Government had been getting with effect from 1st April, 1970 provided the requisite qualifications prescribed in the said notification (Annexure-C) were possessed by them; the petitioners, in the present case, attached to the 'urban centres' had been working since 1965/67; even in terms of subsequent notification, dated 1st February 1985, revision of pay scales, as had been granted in case of Government employees, had also been allowed in case of employees of such centres (Annexure-D); the additional expenditure required to be made in this connection for such revision was assured to be met by the State Government by providing grants in aid; although the staff attached to such urban centres had been receiving pay scales as so directed, they were not granted other benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and other service benefits nor was any security of services conferred on them; on a representation made to the Government of India, on or about 16th June 1981, the State Government was requested by the Government of India, forwarding a copy of the said representation, to give special attention and sent its comment (vide Annexure-G); in the said letter of the Government of India it was specifically made clear that the State Government should ensure release of grants-in-aid well in time to the Indian Red Cross Society so that the staff did not have to undergo undue hardship and any technical difficulty in that respect was asked to be communicated to the Government of India; the Indian Red Cross Society, due to financial stringency, became unable to bear the expenses of such centres and decide to wind them up and in such a situation requested the State Government to absorb the entire staff of the six centres, some of whom had already put in sixteen years of service; since nothing tangible happened, the Society renewed its request again on 8th October, 1982 conveying that since 1982, the staff of such 'urban centres' remained unpaid and pointing out that since the State Government decided to open twenty Urban Family Welfare Centres, the staff of the six centres might be absorbed and their experience might be utilised (vide Annexure-K); similar request was repeated again on 11th December 1982 and 17th of February, 1983 with a clear decision of the Society to wind up the centres by 31st of March 1983; the Government by its letter dated 2nd of May 1983 (Annexure-L) indicated that "It will take some more time to issue order absorbing the qualified staff attached to Urban Family Welfare Centres run by the society. In the circumstances I would request you to continue the centres for a further period of six months with effect from 1st April 1983 on the existing terms and conditions or till the takeover of the centres by the State Government whichever is earlier, so that the programme does not suffer and the staff attached to the State centres also do not feel any difficulty in getting their salary (vide Annexure-L); it appears from the letter of the Indian Red Cross Society dated 8th November 1983, that its Chairman, in course of a discussion with the then Minister of State, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal, was informed that the decision of the State Government to absorb the staff, then serving the six Family Welfare Centres, had already been taken; a letter of the State Government, dated 15th of January 1985, (Annexure-N) written to the Indian Red Cross Society, however, showed that the matter of absorption was still under active consideration of the Government and wanted further information as to whether it would be possible to solve the problems, which the society had been facing if employees of the six centres were transferred to the Government (vide Annexure-N); as no absorption had been made till 4th of February 1985, the then Secretary by his letter again approached the Government for such absorption, reiterating the assurance which emanated from the Government in the past; the Government, however by its letter date 18th July 1989, wrote to the society that, upon a review by the State level grants committee on 23rd June 1989, for the poor performance of the society during 1988-89, the grants were proposed to be discontinued and asked the society to show-cause and explain (Vide Annexure-P); the Indian Red Cross Society allegedly submitted show-cause; the demand for justice served on behalf of the writ petitioners proved abortive; there had been neither any absorption nor any payment to the staff and employees of the six Urban Family Planning Centres. 3. 3. The State Government filed opposition to the writ application affirmed by Joint Secretary (Law) of Health and Family Welfare Department, inter alia, contending that the release of the grants-in-aid, provided by the Central Government, was depending on certain norms and conditions, which the centres to which the petitioners were attached failed to fulfil; there was evaluation of the performance by the State level grants committee on 23rd June 1989, which results in issuance of show-cause against the West Bengal Branch of the Indian Red Cross Society. In course of hearing, on being asked by Court, the Secretary Department of Health Government of West Bengal furnished a report reiterating the said position and communicating that the State Government found no reason to differ from the decision of the said committee and as such there was no release of grants. On behalf of the Government of India, though no affidavit was filed, its counsel endorsed the factual position that the grants-in-aid were provided by the Government of India. 4. From the aforesaid materials, the following undisputed facts emerge:- (a) The petitioners had been rendering services as employees of urban centres under the Indian Red Cross Society started with approval of the Government of India, which provides grants, through the State Government, for meeting the necessary expenditure thereof. (b) The State Government had been holding out the prospect of absorption of such employees as State Government employees. (c) Disbursement of emoluments and allowances to the staff of these centres were not regular, though there is no material on record to show that the Government of India failed to release its grants in time. (d) There was no allegation that the staff of these centres do not have requisite qualifications. (e) In concluding about poor performance, as mentioned in the show-cause notice to the Indian Red Cross Society, sterilization programme and failure of the centres in implementing stating their programme made the basis, though it was not permissible for such centres to undertake such activities in terms of the Government order. (f) The opening of twenty Urban Family Welfare Centres by the State Government was in contemplation. 5. In the context of the aforesaid facts, I am called upon to decide the extent of relief, if at all, to which the petitioners may be entitled. In doing so, I have to remain fully alive to the expanding jurisdiction of the Courts of Writ. 5. In the context of the aforesaid facts, I am called upon to decide the extent of relief, if at all, to which the petitioners may be entitled. In doing so, I have to remain fully alive to the expanding jurisdiction of the Courts of Writ. No doubt, the early history of functioning of the Writ Courts would reveal that such Courts used to observe some self imposed norms principally with the idea of avoiding usurpation of jurisdiction of other authorities where adequate and efficacious reliefs were available, consistently with the concept of the jurisdiction exercised by it as an extraordinary jurisdiction. It was designed and intended, by the framers of the Constitution, to provide remedy for evils, which could not be adequately safeguarded by existing legislation. But since law is dynamic, with the progress and development of society, it was felt necessary, consistent with the concept of welfare state, that the scope of relief ought to be enlarged, and, with other types of legislation, judicial activitism expanded the operative area for writs and added to the multitude of the remedies provides by such Writ Courts exercising such extraordinary jurisdiction. It was felt, from time to time, and recorded and expressed in black and white by the Apex Court of the country for that but for this pragmatic outlook the Directive Principles of the Constitution, which are aimed to bring tangible reliefs to the people of the country at large, would remain fossilized and mere letters of illusion. In unhesitating terms, it has been emphasized by the Supreme Court, in different situations, and on different occasions, that the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution would be meaningless if the Directive Principles embodie therein are not received and appreciated as implied mandates meant to be followed, observed and implemented instead of being preserved in cold storage. In this connection, it is worthwhile to recall the observations made by the Court in the Case of Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR (1973) 4 SCC 225 , Their Lordships Hegde and Mukherjee, JJ. stated therein as follows:- “The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles constitute the 'Conscience' of our Constitution. The purpose of the Fundamental Rights is to create an egalitarian society to free all citizens from coercion or restriction by society and to make liberty available for all. stated therein as follows:- “The Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles constitute the 'Conscience' of our Constitution. The purpose of the Fundamental Rights is to create an egalitarian society to free all citizens from coercion or restriction by society and to make liberty available for all. The purpose of the Directive Principles is to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a nonviolent social revolution. Through such a social revolution the Constitution seeks to fulfil the basic needs• of the common man and to change the structure of our society. It aims at making the Indian masses free in the positive sense. Without faithfully implementing the Directive Principles, it is not possible to achieve the Welfare State contemplated by the Constitution.” Chandrachud, J's observations again in the same case were:- "Our Constitution aims at bringing about a synthesis between 'Fundamental Rights' and the 'Directive Principles of State Policy' by giving to the former a pride place and to the latter a place of permanence. Together, not individually they constitute its true conscience." 6. That is why in interpreting Constitutional provisions Courts have adopted liberal approach and wide outlook so that the changing conditions of the Society, giving rise to newly emerging problems and challenges, are appropriately met and counteracted for preservation of the Fundamental rights, Reference may be made to the case of Francis C. Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory reported in (1981)1 SCC 608 . It is well settled that any Government action, whether in exercise of legal authority or executive power without making of law, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest, which must receive orientation from the Directive Principles and any action, which runs counter to such principles would prima fade, incur the reproach of being unreasonable. The concept of reasonableness constitutes the basic fabric in the Constitutional texture of Articles 14, 19 and 21 which enumerate the Fundamental Rights. The Directive Principles are intended to give shape to this basic fabric of reasonableness. In deciding whether a governmental action satisfies this test, the Court has to take into account infinite variety of considerations relating to the formulated policies of Government. If the tests of reasonableness and public interest are not satisfied, the action of the Government becomes arbitrary and capricious (vide Kasturilal vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in 1980 (4) SCC 1 ). 7. If the tests of reasonableness and public interest are not satisfied, the action of the Government becomes arbitrary and capricious (vide Kasturilal vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in 1980 (4) SCC 1 ). 7. Applying the aforesaid Principles and considering the materials and submissions, particularly the provisions of Articles 14, 16, 41, 42 and 43 of the Constitution and the undisputed facts which have been noted hereinabove, I am of the view that considerable injustice has been done to the petitioners. The petitioners have been rendering services for a very long period and there has been no grievance about absence of necessary qualifications in them to serve in their respective capacity. The factors, which were taken into consideration for evaluating the performance of the urban centres to which the petitioners were attached, namely, unsatisfactory performance in the field of sterilization programme, cannot be said to be the proper criterion as such centres have no authority to carry on sterilization operations. On the ground of so-called poor performance it was not open to the State Government to withhold the grant meant to be released for paying the staff of such centres. The letters and memoranda issued on behalf of the State Government clearly indicate that an assurance was held out to absorb the qualified staff of these urban centres as staff of the State Government and it is not now open to the State Government to go back on the same. Government can not be allowed to forget that in a welfare state it is the obligation of the Government to provide employment to deserving persons and it can not act arbitrarily like a private employer in dealing with the prayers of qualified persons for being conferred appropriate jobs. The family welfare programme has not been given up and can not be given up also in the near future, and, accordingly, it would be unjust to ignore the claims of the petitioners for absorption when new centres are opened or job opportunities are created or brought into existence in such field unless it can be shown that such petitioners lack the necessary qualifications or are unfit for such jobs. It is further to be borne in mind that within the knowledge of the Government, petitioners have been permitted to discharge the duties of employees attached to similar family welfare organisations or units. 8. It is further to be borne in mind that within the knowledge of the Government, petitioners have been permitted to discharge the duties of employees attached to similar family welfare organisations or units. 8. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of by issuing a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 7 to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption as and when new Urban Family Welfare Centres or similar units are opened, as also, as and when equivalent job opportunities become available in the family welfare department of the State Government, according to law and on merit. Let a writ of mandamus also issue commanding the concerned respondent to release the grants or make sufficient funds out of such grants available to the Indian Red Cross Society forthwith for payment of salary, allowance and other financial benefits to the petitioners, which they had so long been getting with regard to the service rendered up-to-date by them forthwith and the respondents 8 to 10 are directed to pay to the petitioners all their arrear dues up-to-date on availability of such necessary funds by the State Government. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners would be entitled to costs from respondents 2, 7 and 11 and such cost is fixed at 30 gms, but petitioners' prayer for interest on arrear amount is refused. The petition allowed with direction to consider the cases of the petitioners for absorption in other welfare centres when job opportunities are available.