Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 354 (CAL)

Arun Mukherji v. State of West Bengal

2012-04-24

ANIRUDDHA BOSE

body2012
JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Bose, J. Though this writ petition has been listed today under the heading "To Be Mentioned", the same is taken up for hearing at this stage only without calling for any affidavit, to which arrangement learned Counsel for the respondents have agreed to. 2. The writ petitioner was working in the judgeship of the District of Howrah. Upon constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner was inclined to join the said Tribunal and the concerned officer of the Tribunal had requested the learned District Judge, Howrah to send the names of the employees working under him and having the requisite qualification for appointment in the registry of the said Tribunal on deputation. 3. The petitioner had been since working on deputation from 3rd September, 2001 and at present wants to be absorbed in the Tribunal itself. For this purpose, the learned District Judge, Howrah is required to give a consent certificate. 4. So far as the initial engagement of the petitioner in the Tribunal is concerned, due procedure was followed and there is no allegation of any defect on that count. 5. The petitioners plea for absorption however is pending since the year 2003. On 10th December, 2003, the Recovery officer of the Tribunal had requested the learned District Judge Howrah to convey his concurrence for final absorption of the writ petitioner in the office of the Tribunal. This request was rejected at the initial stage by a communication dated 6th February, 2004 by the learned District Judge Howrah. The petitioner had come before this Court with this writ petition challenging the order of the learned District Judge refusing to give his concurrence. An interim order was passed to the effect that the petitioner ought to be permitted to remain in the office of the Tribunal. Direction for affidavit was given. No affidavit however has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents. In course of hearing also, learned Counsel for the State respondents could not apprise this Court as to why concurrence was being withheld. 6. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no vested legal right to remain in the post in which he joins on deputation. The parent organisation which permitted him to go on deputation also cannot be compelled to release him. In course of hearing also, learned Counsel for the State respondents could not apprise this Court as to why concurrence was being withheld. 6. Ordinarily, a deputationist has no vested legal right to remain in the post in which he joins on deputation. The parent organisation which permitted him to go on deputation also cannot be compelled to release him. But in this case the writ petitioner is working, albeit on deputation and subsequently on the basis of judicial order, in the Tribunal for over a decade. No affidavit has been filed by the respondents disclosing the reason as to why he is not being released. No case has been made out either that his parent office suffered any grave loss or inconvenience on account of his deputation in Tribunal. Interim order was originally passed on 19th May, 2004. Liberty was given in that order to the respondents to apply for vacation or modification of the interim order. No such application for vacation or modification is on record. 7. From this set of facts and events, it appears to this Court that there was no grave inconvenience caused to the parent department. The petitioner in any event is scheduled to retire on 80th April, 2012 on reaching the age of superannuation as submitted by Mr. Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing on his behalf in course of hearing. Thus there is no effective scope of his return to the parent department and discharging his duty there. 8. In the light of these circumstances, I am of opinion that peculiar circumstances of this case warrants a mandatory direction upon the concerned authority, being the District Judge of Howrah, requiring to him to give his concurrence and pass release order so that appointment of the petitioner can be regularised in the Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 2, where he is working now. Learned Counsel for the Tribunal is present, and it appears from his submissions that the Tribunal has no objection in absorbing him. This order is necessary for release of retiral dues of the petitioner upon his superannuation. 9. Learned Counsel for the Tribunal is present, and it appears from his submissions that the Tribunal has no objection in absorbing him. This order is necessary for release of retiral dues of the petitioner upon his superannuation. 9. I accordingly allow this writ petition in these unusual circumstances, and direct the learned District Judge Howrah to issue the release order and concurrence which would permit the petitioner to be absorbed in the Tribunal In the event such concurrence or release order is issued beyond 80th April 2012, the same shall be given retrospective effect by the Tribunal so that the petitioner is treated as regular employee prior to his superannuation and there is no obstacle in releasing his retiral dues and other benefits, as may be admissible. 10. In the event for any legitimate reasons, like non-compliance of certain statutory provisions or service regulation, release order cannot be issued, such reason shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of communication of this order so that the petitioner is able to cure such defect and thereafter the release order and concurrence may be given. 11. The writ petition is-allowed in the above terms. 12. There shall, however be, no order as to costs. 13. As a Special Case, let urgent photostat plain copy of the order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on usual undertaking.