Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 443 (CAL)

Debasish Roy v. State of West Bengal

2025-08-13

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE

body2025
JUDGMENT : PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J. Mr. Bari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner no. 2 has passed away. He further submits that the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner no. 2 do not wish to be impleaded as parties to the present proceedings. In view thereof, Mr. Bari prays that the name of petitioner no. 2 be expunged from the cause title of the writ petition. 2. In view of the above, the name of petitioner no. 2 is directed to be expunged from the cause title of the writ petition, at the risk and peril of petitioner no. 1. 3. Liberty is granted to the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title accordingly. 4. Now, turning to the merits of the case, it appears that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of Order No. 130 dated 31st December, 2019, issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga, in his capacity as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, in respect of one Sri Debasish Roy, who was serving as a Copyist in the office of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate then. 5. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31st December, 2019. In addition, the petitioner prays for an appropriate direction restraining the concerned respondents from initiating any steps to recover any amount allegedly overdrawn by the petitioner, along with other consequential and ancillary reliefs. 6. Sans unnecessary details, the essential facts leading to the institution of the present writ petition are that, having emerged as a successful candidate through a regular recruitment process, the petitioner joined the Judgeship of Cooch Behar on 7th January, 2006, as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA). Since then, the petitioner has been rendering continuous and unblemished service to date. 7. In acknowledgment of the fact that the petitioner had completed six months of service as on 1st July, 2006, and in terms of Memorandum No. 6605-F(P) dated 29th June, 2011, issued by the Finance Department, Audit Branch, Government of West Bengal, a Pay Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathabhanga. The certificate indicated that the petitioner’s date of increment was fixed as 1st July of each year. The certificate indicated that the petitioner’s date of increment was fixed as 1st July of each year. Accordingly, his pay scale was re-fixed and all consequential benefits were extended to him. 8. Subsequently, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued an order dated 31st December, 2019, alleging that the petitioner had unjustly availed himself of the benefits under the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011. It was contended that the petitioner was erroneously granted annual increments with effect from 1st July, 2006, and accordingly, his pay scale was re-fixed. The petitioner was further directed to deposit certain amounts, which were claimed to have been overdrawn. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9. Mr. Bari, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that according to the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011, if the 1st of January in any year falls on a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, and consequently, an employee joins on the next working day, i.e., the 2nd of January of that year, it shall be construed, in accordance with the provisions of the said Memorandum, that the employee shall be deemed to have completed six months of service as of 1st July of the same year. Accordingly, such employee would be entitled to the benefit of the yearly increment. 10. In the present case, he further contends that 1st January, 2006 was a court holiday. Taking this into consideration, the petitioner was permitted to join on any date between 2nd January, 2006 and 10th January, 2006. The petitioner accordingly joined on 2nd January, 2006, and in view of this, the benefit under the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011 was rightly extended to him. 11. Subsequently, based on the contention that the petitioner had wrongfully availed himself of such benefit, the petitioner’s pay scale was re-fixed and he was directed to deposit a certain sum of money. It is further submitted that the District Judge, Cooch Behar, sought clarification from the Judicial Department. However, the Judicial Department misinterpreted the provisions of the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011, and observed that an employee who was directed to join on the 2nd of January of any year is not entitled to the benefits under the said Memorandum. 12. Mr. Barman, learned Advocate appearing for the State, vehemently opposes the submissions of Mr. However, the Judicial Department misinterpreted the provisions of the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011, and observed that an employee who was directed to join on the 2nd of January of any year is not entitled to the benefits under the said Memorandum. 12. Mr. Barman, learned Advocate appearing for the State, vehemently opposes the submissions of Mr. Bari and submits that the Judicial Department has clarified that an employee who is directed to join on the 2nd of January of any year is not entitled to claim the benefit under the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011. In the present case, irrespective of whether the 1st of January was a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, since the petitioner was directed to join on 2nd January, 2006, he is not entitled to the benefit claimed under the Memorandum dated 29.06.2011. 13. Heard the learned Advocates representing the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 14. Undoubtedly, having emerged as a successful candidate in the selection process initiated in 2005, the petitioner was issued a letter of appointment vide No. 236- A dated 15th December, 2005, directing him to join on the forenoon of 2nd January, 2006, but no later than 10th January, 2006. The petitioner duly joined on 2nd January, 2006. 15. The pay certificate dated 6th October, 2012, issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the capacity of Drawing and Disbursing Officer, indicated that, in terms of Memorandum No. 6605-F(P) dated 29th June, 2011, issued by the Finance Department, Audit Branch, Government of West Bengal, the petitioner was certified to have completed six months of service as of 1st July, 2006. Accordingly, the petitioner’s date of increment was fixed as 1st July of each year, his pay scale was re-fixed, and all consequential benefits were extended to him. 16. As noted earlier, subsequently, after a lapse of more than a decade, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 31st December, 2019, alleged that the petitioner had wrongfully availed the benefits extended under the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011. It was asserted that the petitioner had been mistakenly granted annual increments with effect from 1st July, 2006, resulting in an erroneous re-fixation of his pay scale. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to refund certain amounts, which were alleged to have been overdrawn. It was asserted that the petitioner had been mistakenly granted annual increments with effect from 1st July, 2006, resulting in an erroneous re-fixation of his pay scale. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to refund certain amounts, which were alleged to have been overdrawn. The Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, in a communication dated 21st August, 2009, addressed to the District Judge, Cooch Behar, observed that since the appointment letter directed the concerned candidates to join the post on 2nd January, 2006, such employees are not entitled to claim any benefit under the Finance Department in terms of Memorandum No. 6605-F(P) dated 29th June, 2011. 17. Based on this clarification, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concluded that the petitioner had improperly availed the benefits under the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011. 18. In view of the foregoing, and to better appreciate the issue involved in this writ petition, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Memorandum dated 29th June, 2011, which read as follows: “1. As per provisions of rule 10 of WBS (ROPA) Rules, 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 there is uniform date of increment and such date is the 1 st day of July of every year in respect of the State Government employees. In case of the employees completing 6(six) months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1 st July of a year are eligible to be granted the increment. In terms of this provision of rules the State Government employees who are not able to join posts in a particular grade on account of promotion appointment on the 1 st day of January of a particular year due to the said date falling on Saturday (where Saturday is holiday), Sunday or any gazetted holiday are granted their increment on the 1 st day of July of the next year. 2. In the above context the undersigned is directed yo state that if a State Government employee is to join post in a particular grade on promotion/appointment on 1 st January of a year happens to be Saturday (where Saturday is holiday), Sunday or any gazetted holiday actually joins on the 1st working day of the year will be treated to have completed 6(six) months’ service on the 1 st day of July of that year for the purpose of granting him increment on that day. 3. 3. Necessary amendment in the WBS (ROPA) Rules, 2009 will be done in due course.” 19. Therefore, applying the Mischief Rule of interpretation, it becomes evident that the objective behind the issuance of the Memorandum dated 29th June 2011 was to fix a uniform date, 1st July of every year, for granting annual increments upon completion of six months of service. This was intended to address the disadvantage faced by employees who could not join on 1st January due to it being a holiday in many institutions, including the one where the petitioner was appointed. 20. Therefore, the Memorandum clarified that an employee who joins on 2nd January of any year shall be deemed to have completed six months of service as on 1st July of that year. However, the clarification issued by the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal, appears to create a classification between employees who, despite being directed to join on 1st January, failed to do so, and those who were not directed to join on that date but joined on 2nd January. In my view, such a classification does not constitute a reasonable classification based on any intelligible differentia. 21. In the present case, although the selection process was concluded in the early part of December 2005, considering that 1st January 2006 was a holiday, the petitioner was directed to join between 2nd January and 10th January 2006. The petitioner joined on 2nd January 2006 in compliance with that directive. Thus, although the petitioner joined on 2nd January 2006 pursuant to the said direction, he is being deprived of the benefits under the Memorandum dated 29th June 2011 solely on that ground. 22. Judicial review encompasses grounds such as illegality, irrationality (including Wednesbury unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety. The doctrine of reasonableness has evolved to give way to the doctrine of proportionality. The primary aim of judicial review is to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, and mala fides. Therefore, it is required that an authority not only acts within the scope of its powers and strictly in accordance with the law but also exercises its discretion reasonably. If an administrative action or decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic, such action or decision would be subject to judicial review. 23. The administrative action taken mechanically without considering objective of the Memorandum dated 29.06.2011 is not warranted. If an administrative action or decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic, such action or decision would be subject to judicial review. 23. The administrative action taken mechanically without considering objective of the Memorandum dated 29.06.2011 is not warranted. The administrative action must stand the test of rationality and/or reasonability. 24. Therefore, given the fact that there is no reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia between employees who, despite being directed to join on 1st January of a particular year, joined on 2nd January, and those who joined on 2nd January without such direction, and considering that such benefits have been extended for over a decade before being withdrawn, I am of the view that this action is manifestly illogical and unjustifiable. 25. Therefore, based on the reasons and discussions set out in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the view the order dated 31st December, 2019 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondents are accordingly directed to continue granting the yearly increments in favor of the petitioner with effect from 1st July, 2006, along with all consequential benefits. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is, thus, disposed of. 27. There will be no order as to costs.