Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 74 (CAL)

Director Of Local Bodies v. Alok Banik

2019-01-16

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2019
JUDGMENT : BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. 1. Re: CAN 9309 of 2018 (Application for condonation of delay) After considering the submission made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application for condonation of delay, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown by the learned advocate for the applicant/appellant to explain the delay in filing of the appeal. As such, the delay is condoned. The application for condonation of delay, being CAN 9309 of 2018, is accordingly allowed. Re: CAN 9310 of 2018 (Application for Leave to prefer an appeal) 2. This is an application seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the order dated 18th July, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in connection with the W. P. 12491 (W) of 2017. 3. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the applicant may be granted leave to prefer an appeal against the order dated 18th July, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in connection with the W. P. 12491 (W) of 2017. 4. The application is allowed accordingly. Re: MAT 2122 of 2017 with CAN 9308 of 2018 5. The appeal is treated as on day’s list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 6. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 18th July, 2017, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 12491 (W) of 2017 (Alok Banik vs. Taherpur Notified Area Authority & Ors.). By the said impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition after taking into consideration the relevant rule, i.e., Rule 16 of the West Bengal Municipal Employees’ (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2010, while observing as follows: - “After reading Rule 16 of the said Rules, this Court does not find that a further or fresh sanction is necessary for reinstatement of a terminated employee, who succeeded before the appellate authority. The language used therein appears to be too cryptic and does not reflect the mind of the framer for which it has been incorporated. The language used therein appears to be too cryptic and does not reflect the mind of the framer for which it has been incorporated. If an order of termination is set aside by the appellate authority, the consequences should follow automatically there from and this Court does not find any justification for fresh sanction in reinstating a suspended employee. Though, the said provision appears to be ambiguous but if the stand of the authority is that a permission/sanction is to be granted by the Director of Local Bodies, this Court, therefore, directs the Director of Local Bodies to accord such sanction within two weeks from the date of the communication of this order, so that the petitioner is reinstated to the post in terms of the order passed by the appellate authority. It is, however, made clear that no other points have been decided by this Court and, therefore, shall not be deemed to have been the subject matter of decision in the instant writ petition. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” 7. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal, interference is usually warranted only when palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. That apart and in any event, the impugned judgment and order is supported with cogent and justifiable reasons. 8. In such circumstances, we do not find any reasons as to why the impugned judgment and order is required to be interfered with. The appeal and the application for stay are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. Arindam Mukherjee, J. : I agree.