Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 636 (CAL)

SK Asraf Ali v. The State of West Bengal

2007-08-17

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2007
Judgment :- (1) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the authorities have not stepped up his pay to the stage at which the fourth and fifth respondents were getting their pay in the capacity of process server working in the judgeship of the District Judge, Howrah. (2) ON October 11th, 1966 the petitioner was appointed in the judgeship of the District Judge as a night guard. With effect from April 1st, 1970 he was promoted to the post of process server. The fourth respondent was appointed, through a direct recruitment process, to the post of process server on february 1st, 1978. The fifth respondent was appointed as peon on june 16th, 1976. Then he was promoted to the post of process server on june 1 st, 1977. It is thus apparent that in the cadre of process server in the judgeship of the District Judge, Howrah the petitioner was senior to both the fourth and fifth respondents. (3) THOUGH the fourth respondent was junior to the fifth respondent, while working as process server, the fourth respondent started getting higher pay. Consequently, the fifth respondent moved this Court by filing a writ petition that was disposed of directing the judicial secretary to look into the alleged anomaly and give a reasoned decision. Accordingly, the judicial secretary gave his decision dated August 21st, 2001 that the fifth respondent was entitled to get his pay re-fixed by stepping up his pay to the stage the fourth respondent was getting his pay. Accepting the decision the authorities stepped up pay of the fifth respondent and fixed his pay and gave him all consequential benefits, including monetary benefits. (4) ONE Pratap Chandra Ghosh, another process server working in the judgeship of the District Judge, Howrah was also aggrieved by the fact that though he was senior to the fourth and fifth respondents in this case, those respondents were getting higher pay. Relying on the decision of the judicial secretary dated August 21 st, 2001 he moved this Court by filing a writ petition, which was allowed by order dated April 17th, 2006 directing the authorities to give him benefit of stepping up in terms of the decision of the judicial secretary. Accordingly, benefits were given to that Pratap Chandra Ghosh. Relying on the decision of the judicial secretary dated August 21 st, 2001 he moved this Court by filing a writ petition, which was allowed by order dated April 17th, 2006 directing the authorities to give him benefit of stepping up in terms of the decision of the judicial secretary. Accordingly, benefits were given to that Pratap Chandra Ghosh. (5) ON the basis of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and my decision in Kalyan Kumar Tripathi v. D. I. of Schools, 2007 (1)ESC 13 (Cal), counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no reason why pay of the petitioner should not be stepped up to the stage of pay of the fourth and fifth respondents. Facing with the situation, Counsel for the authorities finds little to say in justification of the inaction on the part of his clients. He only says that on the facts the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of the fifth respondent who got the benefit of stepping up alleging that the fourth respondent being junior could not get pay higher than him. (6) I find that the authorities were not justified in denying the benefits to the petitioner. Admittedly, he was senior to the fourth and fifth respondents in the cadre of process server, and before he retired from service on October 31st, 2006 he had filed this writ petition. When the judicial secretary settled the identical issue while considering the case of the fifth respondent who wanted his pay to be stepped up to the stage of pay of the fourth respondent, in my view, there was absolutely no reason for the authorities not to step up the pay of the petitioner who was indisputably senior to both the fourth and fifth respondents. I find that Pratap did not get the benefit either till he approached the Court that made order directing the authorities to step up his pay keeping in view the pay of the fourth and fifth respondents in this case who were junior to him as well. This being the position, I find no reason why the pay of the petitioner was not to be stepped up, and the benefits claimed by him were not to be given to him. (7) FOR these reasons, I allow the writ petition and order as follows. This being the position, I find no reason why the pay of the petitioner was not to be stepped up, and the benefits claimed by him were not to be given to him. (7) FOR these reasons, I allow the writ petition and order as follows. In the light of the foregoing observations and on the basis of the principles stated in the decision of the judicial secretary dated August21st, 2001, the authorities shall step up the pay of the petitioner keeping in view the pay of the fourth and fifth respondents. They shall fix the petitioners pay at the same stage with effect from the date when for the first time the fourth respondent started getting higher pay in the capacity of process server. After refixing the pay and calculating the financial benefits payable, the authorities shall pay such benefits and all other admissible benefits to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. On the facts, I am not inclined to order for costs and interest on the amount that may be found payable. Hence there shall be no order for costs and interest in the case.