Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 414 (CAL)

Narayan Bhusan Deb v. State of West Bengal

2015-05-11

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, TAPEN SEN

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Pal, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Swapan Kumar Majumder for the Nadia District Primary School Council (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). 2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 10th March, 2011 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. 12309 (W) of 2001 (Sri Narayan Bhusan Deb & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. 3. The said Writ Petition is a part of this Paper Book. It appears that the same was filed with a prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to take necessary action with regard to fixation of the notional service benefits, namely, the benefits of provident fund, gratuity, pension, leave salary, seniority and other service benefits with effect from March, 1991 in terms of the Judgment and Order dated 13th March, 1991. This was the principal prayer made in the Writ Petition. 4. From the Impugned Judgment, the facts, which are being elicited, are that these Writ Petitioners/Appellants were working as Primary Teachers in different schools recognised by the authorities empowered to do so. They had been appointed on various dates in the year 1999 after prolonged litigations over their appointment. According to the Appellants, their right to make the prayers before the Writ Court was on the basis of a Judgment and Order delivered by another learned Single Judge of this Court on 13th March, 1991 in Civil Order No. 11154 (W) of 1989. By the said Order dated 13th March, 1991, the said learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition observing that the State-Respondents and the Council should have allowed the Petitioners of that case the same benefits as were made applicable to those Petitioners. 5. Consequently, the learned Single Judge granted similar benefits to those Petitioners by directing the Respondents to appoint them as Primary Teachers against the available vacancies within a period of three months from that date. 6. Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Pal, learned Counsel for the Appellants, stated that the Writ Petition, which was disposed of on 13th March, 1991 being Civil Order No. 11154 (W) of 1989, was also filed by these Appellants. 7. 6. Mr. Lakshmi Kanta Pal, learned Counsel for the Appellants, stated that the Writ Petition, which was disposed of on 13th March, 1991 being Civil Order No. 11154 (W) of 1989, was also filed by these Appellants. 7. The matter was kept lingering and the Government and/or the Council did not issue Appointment Letters, as a result whereof the Appellants filed a petition for contempt being C.R. 15733 (W) of 1993 and by an Order dated 23rd June, 1999, the same was disposed of when the learned Counsel, who was appearing on behalf of the alleged Contemnor, placed before the Contempt Court a letter dated 22.06.1999 addressed to him by the Chairman of the Ad-hoc Committee of the Respondent No.2 herein. That letter disclosed that a decision had been taken by the Counsel in its meeting dated 15.6.1999 to give appointment to 88 Petitioners of C.O. No. 11154 (W) of 1989. 8. Before the said Contempt Court, learned Counsel appearing for the alleged Contemnor also stated that Letters of Appointment shall be sent to the respective appointees within ten days by Registered Post and on receipt thereof, they may produce their original certificates before the Chairman, Ad-hoc Committee and the Nadia District Primary School Council. Consequently, the matter was disposed of along with C.R. 6009 (W) of 1992, which was treated to be on the day's list for hearing. 9. It appears that thereafter, Appointment Letters were issued to these Appellants although, at the fag end of their normal service tenure. 10. The case before the learned Single Judge, as was submitted by Mr. Pal, was that notional appointment should have been given to the Appellants from 13th March, 1991 itself because their rights had crystallized on the basis of a Judgment dated 13th March, 1991 passed in Civil Order No. 11154 (W) of 1989 as referred to above. In the background of the aforementioned prayer, the learned Judge, taking into consideration the other facts and circumstances, held that the Appellants cannot be said to have acquired any vested right to be appointed from the date the Judgment was delivered. The learned Judge also took into consideration the fact that the Contempt Proceedings were merely disposed of in view of the undertaking given by the State that Appointment Letters would be issued to the respective candidates. 11. The learned Judge also took into consideration the fact that the Contempt Proceedings were merely disposed of in view of the undertaking given by the State that Appointment Letters would be issued to the respective candidates. 11. In such a background, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no new cause of action and, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition in its entirety. 12. We cannot lose sight of another important event. The Judgment passed in Civil Order No. 11154 (W) of 1989 was contested by the Respondents by filing F.M.A.T. 1155 of 1991. In Paragraph 20 of the Writ Petition, it has been stated that the Appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench and on 16th June, 1997, the same was dismissed after a contested hearing. Consequently, the Letters of Appointment ought to have been issued by the concerned authorities immediately after dismissal of the said F.M.A.T. 1155 of 1991, but they did not do anything in the matter and issued the Appointment Letters only when a Contempt Application was filed and the Respondents gave an undertaking. This fact does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition. 13. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that at least from 1997, i.e. the date of dismissal of the Appeal on 16.6.1997 to the date of their appointment, the Appellants are entitled to notional benefits except salary benefit (following the principle of no work no pay) and from 1999 onwards, they are entitled to full regular service benefits. 14. We hold accordingly. 15. If some of the Appellants have expired in the meantime, their legal heirs and successors will have the right to approach the Respondent No. 2 along with succession certificate etc. In the event some of the Appellants have retired, they will also present their credentials before the Respondent No.2. The District Council, on its part, after receiving such applications, shall immediately and forthwith forward the same to the Government for necessary action. 16. The Appeal stands disposed of. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. Appeal allowed.