SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Cal) 507

KHWAJA MOHAMMAD YUSUF
MANICK CHANDRA SARDAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.BASU CHOUDHURY, J.ISLAM

K. M. YUSUF, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners were appointed in different capacity on different dates on fix consolidated pay under the respondents in the Sandeshkhali-I Development Block. The petitioner No. 1, a Schedule Tribe, was appointed night-guard in 1980 at a consolidated pay 4 Rs. 250/-per month; the petitioner No. 2 was appointed an instructor in 1980 at a consolidated pay of Rs. 350/- per month and the petitioner No. 3 was appointed as a demonstrator at a consolidated pay of Rs. 300/- per month. There is no break in services of any of the petitioners since 22nd April, 1981 and on this count they claim to have acquired the status of permanent employees in accordance with the Memorandum No. 6059-F dated 25th June, 1979 issued by the Finance Department (Audit Branch), Government of West Bengal. It is their further case that they rendered services till the month of June 1985 when suddenly the petitioner No. 2 by Memo dated 9th July, 1985 was asked to hand over the charge of the Training-cum-Production Centre at Nazat immediately to the E. O. (I) of the Block on the allegation that the said petitioner was not available at the Centre from 12th June, 1985. It is the case of the petiti








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top