Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 78 (CAL)

SUNITA GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2017-01-13

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. This writ petition has been taken out by five (5) individuals who claim to be office staff working under Bhangar-I Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) project operated by an NGO, Shri Ramkrishna Satyananda Ashram, who were issued appointment letters by the said NGO as per order of the Director of Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal, after approval of panel by the Department of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal, for their respective posts. According to the petitioners, appointment letters were issued in their favour sometime in the year, 2003, and since then they are working as Supervisors of the said project with utmost sincerity and to their best of capacity without any break. 2. The reason for approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India appears to be for the purpose of seeking extension of certain benefits and/or facilities, such as Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), Bonus/Advance, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Group Insurance, General Provident Fund, Pension and Health Scheme as per the existing Government Rules. Their entire case is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on 10th December, 2008 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16547 of 2007 (State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Kaberi Khastagir & Ors.). 3. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, following the ratio of the above decision rendered by the Supreme Court, the respondent authorities should be directed to treat the writ petitioners as Government employees at par with the Government operated ICDS employees. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Additional Advocate General for the State of West Bengal submits that the writ petitioners are not at all similarly situate and circumstanced as that of the employees referred in the judgment of the Supreme Court. He submits that in the facts of the instant case, the petitioners were issued appointment letters not by the State Government but by the NGO, Shri Ramkrishna Satyananda Ashram. As such, they stand on a completely different footing and the benefits which can be granted to those who have been issued appointment letters by the State Government cannot be extended to the petitioners since they were all initially engaged by the NGO and not by the State Government. 5. As such, they stand on a completely different footing and the benefits which can be granted to those who have been issued appointment letters by the State Government cannot be extended to the petitioners since they were all initially engaged by the NGO and not by the State Government. 5. The learned Assistant Additional Advocate General further submits that none of the employees who have been initially engaged by other NGOs for similar work have come forward to seek such reliefs as sought for in the instant writ petition. That apart and in any event, the entire ICDS project is based on a 60:40 partnership between the Central Government and the State Government where the Central Government contributes 60% and 40% by the State. The State can only give the benefits as sought for by the petitioners if the Centre pays 60% of the total amount that is likely to be incurred as expenses for giving such benefits. 6. It is the admitted position that all the petitioners were initially issued appointment letters sometime in the year, 2003 by the concerned NGO, namely, Shri Ramkrishna Satyananda Ashram. Even if those appointment letters were issued by the NGO in terms of any Government order, it cannot ipso facto mean that they are employees of the State. The facts leading to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, therefore, is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. As such, the ratio of the said judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is not at all applicable in the present case. 7. This Court, in such circumstances, is unable to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners directing the State respondents to give such benefits as prayed for. However, if at a subsequent stage, the Centre allocates 60% of the total funds for such benefits as sought for by the petitioners, it will be open to the writ petitioners to re-approach this Court seeking such reliefs as prayed for herein. 8. However, if at a subsequent stage, the Centre allocates 60% of the total funds for such benefits as sought for by the petitioners, it will be open to the writ petitioners to re-approach this Court seeking such reliefs as prayed for herein. 8. This order, however, shall not stand in the way of the writ petitioners in the event they approach for some advance against their salary to the concerned authorities before any recognised festival for which similar advances are being paid to those employees who have been initially engaged by the State Government in similar type of ICDS project. In such an event, the concerned authorities may consider grant of such advance on a case to case basis. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.