Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Ajit Kumar Sengupta
PURNENDU NARAYAN CHAKRABORTY - Appellant
Versus
THE HONble THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT - Respondent
Matter 174 Of 1987
Decided On : 06/15/1989
SUPERSESSION - DENIAL OF HIGHER SCALE - WRONGLY CONSIDERED ADVERSE ENTRIES IN ACRS - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 - DOUBLE JEOPARDY - DEEMED PROMOTION - BENEFIT OF HIGHER SCALE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial), was superseded in 1985 by two junior officers for promotion to the rank of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. He was also denied the benefit of a higher scale of pay to which he was entitled. The petitioner challenged the validity of the promotion notification and the denial of the higher scale of pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the supersession of the petitioner was illegal and arbitrary. The adverse remarks in the ACRs of 1978, 1979, and 1980, which were the basis for the supersession, were not justified. The court also held that the denial of the benefit of the higher scale of pay was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court further held that the principle adopted by the authorities, that those whose promotions as Assistant District Judge were deferred were not entitled to the benefit of the higher scale, amounted to double jeopardy.
Issues: 1. Whether the supersession of the petitioner was justified. 2. Whether the denial of the benefit of the higher scale of pay was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the supersession of the petitioner was not justified because: a. The adverse remarks in the ACRs of 1978, 1979, and 1980 were not justified. b. The petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar in 1982 and was given the responsible assignment of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in 1983, which indicated that the authorities did not take the adverse remarks in the ACRs seriously. 2. The court held that the denial of the benefit of the higher scale of pay was not justified because: a. It was based on the same adverse remarks in the ACRs that were used to justify the supersession. b. It amounted to double jeopardy.
Final Decision: The court quashed the promotion notification and directed the authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner with effect from 1st April 1985 and to give him the benefit of the higher scale of pay with effect from 31st October 1983.
( 1 ) THE writ petitioner, Purnendu Narayan Chakraborty, is a member of the Infest Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) and is currently posted as Assistant District Judge of Nadia. He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Chief Justice of this Court and other concerned authorities. He says that he has been discriminated against and has been subjected to unfair treatment in relation to his service. His grievances are:- (a) He has been superseded by many of his juniors at the stage of promotion from the grade of Judicial Magistrate or Munsiff to the next higher post of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate; (b) He has been denied the benefit of a higher scale of pay to which he was lawfully entitled.
( 2 ) HE has prayed for quashing the various orders which resulted in such supersession and the order denying him the benefit of the higher scale. He has also prayed for re-fixation of his seniority in the rank of Assistant District Judge in accordance with law.
( 3 ) INSPITE of several opportunities being granted no affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the authorities of this Court or the officers of the State Government or the State of West Bengal who have been impleaded as respondents.
( 4 ) IT appears that on 12th February, 1987, I directed the writ petitioner to serve a copy of the application upon the respondents and pursuant to such direction the petitioner's Advocate-on-record communicated the said direction upon Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate for the respondents. Thereafter, on 14th December, 1987, when the matter appeared before Subhas Chandra Sen, J. as an adjourned application, Mr. Justice Sen gave directions for filing affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply.
( 5 ) HOWEVER, as directed, the relevant records of this Court relating to the petitioner have been produced and I have gone through these records. I also allowed the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner to inspect the records so produced.
( 6 ) FOR appreciating the justifiability or otherwise of the grievances of the petitioner it is necessary to consider the factual background. I will first briefly indicate the tactual allegations made by the petitioner in his writ petition. Thereafter, I propose to record certain facts which appear from the records of this Court produced before me. THE WRIT PETITION
( 7 ) ON 22nd February, 1974 the petitioner joined the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) as a Munsiff. He was confirmed in service with effect from 22nd February, 1976. After his initial postings the petitioner was transferred and posted as Judicial Magistrate. Sealdah in the District of 24-Parganas (which is of the same rank as Munsiff) in May, 1978.
( 8 ) THE Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah is under the control of the District Judge of 24-Parganas. The District Judges prepare and maintain Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) on, inter alia, the merit of performance of the Munsiff Judicial Magistrates.
( 9 ) ON 6th December, 1980 the petitioner received through the Additional Registrar (Appellate Side) of this Court extract of ACR prepared by the District Judge of 24-Parganas for the year 1978 stating that on 23rd December, 1978 the District Judge had paid surprise visit to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah and found the Court Room padlocked from outside with the internal lights on and that the District Judge had examined the petitioner's diary which did not give any idea of his hour of arrival, taking of judicial seat and rising from Court. The petitioner made a representation in writing on 15th December, 1980 against the remarks contained in the ACR.
( 10 ) IN the last week of December, 1980 the petitoner was sent on deputation to Andaman and Nicobar Islands to work as Judicial Magistrate, First Class in the District of Andaman. While working as Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Maya Bandar in the Andamans, the petitioner received a memo dated 27th February
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
