Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 470 (CAL)

BRINDABAN GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2012-05-16

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that he has been working for more than ten years in the panchayat office of Paharpur Gram Panchayat, Kalinarayanpur, Nadia. According to him, he is entitled to get benefit of the notification dated 8th October, 2003 bearing No. 359S/PN/O/I/3S-114/2003 issued by the Department of Panchayat & R.D, Government of West Bengal. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner has been working in the panchayat office since 1974. Therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of the aforementioned notification dated 8th October, 2003. Learned Counsel further submits that this point has already been decided before the Hon'ble Division Bench in its judgment reported in (2009)1 WBLR (Cal) 168 (Shri Adhirath Mondl vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors,). He led emphasis in para 14 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder: "14, Considering the submissions of the (learned Counsel of the respective parties and taking note of the facts disclosed by the Pradhan, Nakole Gram Panchayat, in the affidavit filed before this Court we are of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the initial appointment of the appellant in the concerned Gram Panchayat was irregular but such irregular appointment of the appellant can be regularised in terms' of the notification dated 8th October, 2003 issued by the Department of Panchayats & R.D., Government of West Bengal, specially when a Group 'D' post is lying vacant in the concerned Gram Panchayat." 3. According to the Counsel for the writ petitioner, as per the judgment of the said Division Bench, the writ petitioner is entitled to get benefit of the aforementioned circular and his service should be regularised when a Group 'D' post is available in the concerned Gram Panchayat. 4. Mr. Halder, learned Counsel for the State, submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment held that a casual employee should not be regularised. 5. In reply, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that in support of the aforementioned notification the writ petitioner can get his relief. However, he submits that Uma Devi's case (supra) is not at all applicable since the circular of 2003 came into force and the writ petitioner has been working since 1974. 6. In my view, the point is not res integra. However, he submits that Uma Devi's case (supra) is not at all applicable since the circular of 2003 came into force and the writ petitioner has been working since 1974. 6. In my view, the point is not res integra. The judgment of the Division Bench is quite clear and applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of circular dated 8th October, 2003 and he should be regularised in any Group 'D' post which is lying vacant. 7. I, therefore, direct the respondent authorities to regularise the writ petitioner in terms of the circular dated 8th October, 2003 in a regular vacancy. In case the writ petitioner is working in a regular Group 'T' vacancy, the respondents would regularise the writ petitioner's service in terms of the notification forthwith. 8. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from date of communication of this order. 9. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.