Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 972 (CAL)

Pradip Das v. State of West Bengal

2014-10-28

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Debasish Kar Gupta, J. Let affidavit-of-service be kept on record. 2. This writ application is directed against an order dated January 17, 2014 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Municipal Affairs Department. The above order was passed in compliance of the order dated December 20, 2013 passed in the matter of Apu Podder & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No.27388 (W) of 2013). By virtue of the impugned order the claim of the petitioner to extend the benefit as provided in the Order No.162/MA/O/C-9/2A-1/2010 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order) dated April 23, 2010 was rejected. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as daily rated workers under the respondent No.5 during the year 2000. According to him, he has been discharging the functions attached to the above post till date. 4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 that the respondent-Municipality is not under obligation to bear the expenses for giving remuneration and other benefits to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Departmental Circular No.441/MA/O/C-9/2A-1/2010 dated September 24, 2010. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the relevant portions of the impugned order are quoted below for adjudication of the issue involved in this matter: "In this connection this may be mentioned that Casual workers seems to have been engaged by almost all Urban Local Bodies including Kalyani Municipality. But, no such benefit as per order no.162/MA/O/C-9/2A-1/2010 dated 23.4.10 seems to have been extended to any such worker in any Municipality by the Municipal Affairs Deptt. The remuneration to these cause workers seem to be paid by the Municipality and State Govt. does not provide funds to the Municipality in this regard." 6. After considering the impugned order it was evident that the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the following grounds:- i. No such benefit according to the said Order had been extended to any worker in any Municipality by the Municipal Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal. ii. The remuneration of the petitioner was paid by the respondent No.5 and the State Government did not provide any fund to the Municipality in this regard. 7. ii. The remuneration of the petitioner was paid by the respondent No.5 and the State Government did not provide any fund to the Municipality in this regard. 7. After considering the said Order read with Departmental Circular No.441/MA/O/C-9/2A-1/2010 dated September 24, 2010, I find that the casual/daily rated workers, who had been attached to various Urban Local Bodies, were entitled to enjoy the above benefits subject to fulfillment of the following conditions:- 1. The casual/daily rated workers, who had attached to various Urban Local Bodies for not less than 10 years as on April 1, 2010, were entitled to the above benefits. 2. The above casual/daily rated workers rendered service for at least 240 days each year were allowed to enjoy the above benefit. 8. Therefore, I find that the relevant factors of the said Order were not taken into consideration by the authority for passing the impugned order. Rather extraneous considerations were taken into account to reject the claim of the petitioner. 9. It is the settled principles of law that in course of judicial review on the basis of an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is open for the Court to examine whether there is any error or illegality in the decision making process. 10. Reference may be made to the decision of State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh reported in (1989) 2 SCC 505 and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below : "62. When the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decisionmaking process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. In the present case, it is, however, not necessary to go into the merits and relevance of the grounds having regard to the view we propose to take on the point on natural justice". 11. Therefore, the decision making process of the above authority cannot be sustained in law. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 13. 11. Therefore, the decision making process of the above authority cannot be sustained in law. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 13. The respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit in accordance with the provisions of the said Order to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order provided the petitioner was entitled to get the above benefit in accordance with law. If the respondent authority finds that the writ petitioner has not fulfilled any of the above conditions of the said order then the competent authority will pass an order assigning the reasons therefore within the period mentioned hereinabove after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioner. 14. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. 15. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all necessary formalities. Application is allowed.