Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 132 (CAL)

Raushanara Begum v. State of West Bengal

2016-02-04

TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY

body2016
JUDGMENT : The instant writ application has been preferred, inter alia, praying for dissolution of the Managing Committee of Khalisani Jainal Memorial Madrasah Siksha Kendra (hereinafter referred to as the said MSK) and to allow the petitioner to function as the Muksha Siksha Samprasarak of the said MSK and to disburse the arrear honorarium in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner protested against the illegalities perpetrated by the Managing Committee of the said MSK and in response thereto an enquiry was conducted by the respondent no.7 and a report was filed on 29th January, 2013 observing, inter alia, that the Managing Committee of the said MSK has not been constituted as per the provisions laid down in the guidelines. He further submits that on 2nd January, 2014 a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner alleging unauthorized absence for a period from 14th June, 2013 to 21st December, 2013. The petitioner duly replied to the same but without granting any opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was abruptly terminated by an order dated 21St April, 2014. The said resolution was placed before the respondent no.3, who by a memorandum dated 14th August, 2015 directed the respondent no.5 to release honorarium of all Samprasaraks and the Muksha Siksha Samprasarak, being the petitioner herein without accepting the part of the resolution regarding dismissal of the petitioner. He further alleges that the private respondent nos. 9, 10 and 11 are close relatives and they are forcibly preventing the petitioner from discharging her normal duties. Such contention of Mr. Chatterjee has been disputed by Mr. Koushik Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.8 to 11 and upon instruction, he submits that the Managing Committee of the said Madrasah is ready and willing to allow the petitioner to join and continue her service as the Muksha Siksha Samprasarak but the petitioner herself is creating problems and has also not accepted the honorarium, which was offered to her by a cheque issued by the respondent no.10. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that there is a long standing dispute amongst the members of the Managing Committee of the said MSK and that though a cheque amounting to Rs.7,28,732/- was forwarded to the said MSK appropriate utilization certificate was not sent by the said MSK. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that there is a long standing dispute amongst the members of the Managing Committee of the said MSK and that though a cheque amounting to Rs.7,28,732/- was forwarded to the said MSK appropriate utilization certificate was not sent by the said MSK. Documents to that effect as produced on behalf of the State respondents be kept on record. Mr. Chatterjee, however, submits that the utilization certificate up to the month of September, 2015 has been issued by the MSK authorities. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record. Prima facie, it appears that there is a long standing dispute amongst the members of the said MSK and that as a consequence thereof the students in the said MSK had been the worst sufferers. The Government has promulgated the scheme towards establishment of MSK for the benefit of the students and the object of such scheme has been sought to be frustrated through the infighting amongst the members of the Managing Committee. In the conspectus of such facts and reasons and to restore normalcy, this Court issues the following interim directives:- (a) The petitioner shall attend the said MSK on 9th February, 2016 at 10 A.M.; (b) The respondent nos.8 to 11 shall allow the petitioner to resume her duties and to sign the Attendance Register on and from 9th February, 2016; (c) The respondent nos.8 to 11 shall allow the petitioner to function as the Muksha Siksha Samprasarak and to continue her duties in the said post in the said MSK till the returnable date on which the matter will be taken up for further consideration; (d) The respondent nos.8 to 11 shall pay the honorarium for the months of February, 2016 and March, 2016 to the petitioner prior to the returnable date. The respondents shall file their affidavits-in-opposition within a period of three weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List the matter for further consideration under the heading “For Orders” in the daily supplementary list of this Court on 7th April, 2016.