Back
2001 Supreme(Cal) 787
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tarun Chatterjee, Hrishikesh Banerji, JJ.
Jayanta Kumar Ganguly - Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Opposite Parties
W. P. S. T. No. 205 of 1998
Decided On : December 21, 2001
Mr. Kashi Kanto Moitra and Rasomoy Mandai, for the Petitioner
Mr. Nigam Kumar Chakraborty and Mrs. Sampa Sarkar, for the Opposite Parties
An employee's claim for reinstatement and absorption into a regular service may be barred by laches if they fail to challenge an order terminating their services for a prolonged period.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - REINSTATEMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - DISTRICT REGISTRAR'S OFFICE - EXTRA MUHARRIR - ABSORPTION AS LOWER DIVISION CLERK - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - INTERPRETATION OF SERVICE RULES - WEST BENGAL SERVICE (TEMPORARY AND QUASI-PERMANENT SERVICE AND SERVICE WITH PERMANENT STATUS) RULES, 1967 - WHETHER THE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AS EXTRA MUHARRIR AND ABSORPTION AS LOWER DIVISION CLERK - HELD, NO.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Extra Muharrir in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Habra, was not allowed to resume his duty on 3.1.1977 due to his unauthorized absence and perfunctory official behavior. He sought reinstatement in his service and redesignation as a Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1978, claiming that he was entitled to be absorbed as an L.D.C. under the Government's decision to absorb all Extra Muharrirs into regular service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's claim for reinstatement as an Extra Muharrir and absorption as a Lower Division Clerk was not justified. It found that the petitioner was not in employment at the time of the absorption and regularisation of Extra Muharrirs and that his claim had become stale due to his failure to challenge the order of the Sub-Registrar disallowing him to join his duties for a period of 16 years.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's services were validly terminated? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement as an Extra Muharrir and absorption as a Lower Division Clerk?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's services were not validly terminated as he was not given an opportunity of hearing before being disallowed to join his duties. However, it found that the petitioner's claim for reinstatement had become stale due to his failure to challenge the order of the Sub-Registrar for a period of 16 years. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement as an Extra Muharrir and absorption as a Lower Division Clerk as he was not in employment at the time of the absorption and regularisation of Extra Muharrirs.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ application, holding that the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting his prayers for reinstatement and redesignation was justified.
Banerji, J. : By the present writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated February 18, 1998 whereby the petitioner's prayers for his reinstatement in his service as Extra Muharrir w.e.f. 3.1.1977 and for redesignating him as the Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1978 was refused.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Extra Muharrir in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Habra by the District Registrar of 24-parganas (North) on a temporary basis to liquidate the arrears in copying. He joined on 5.7.1965 but did not attend his office from 25th October to 31st December in the year 1976. On 3.1.1977 when he reported for duty he was at first allowed to resume his duty by the Sub-Registrar subject to the approval of the superior authority but around 11-30 a.m., the same day, the Sub-Registrar passed an order in the order book whereby the petitioner was not allowed to work on the grounds of his unauthorised absence for a long period and extremely perfunctory official behaviour,
3. It is stated by the petitioner that the Government had taken a decision to absorb all the Extra Muharrirs into regular service as Lower Division Clerks and by virtue of the said decision the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as an L.D.C. w.e.f. 1.4.1978. Without taking any steps for a period of long 16 years the petitioner made an application on 28.9.1992 requesting the District Registrar, North 24-Parganas for his reinstatement in the service and the matter was forwarded to the State Government by the Inspector General of Registration. The Government informed the Inspector General by a communication that the petitioner would be reinstated as daily-rated worker as a special case in relaxation of the bar created by the Labour Department's Memo No. 1700-EMP dated 3.8.1979. The petitioner was informed of the said order of the Government by Memo No. 2988 dated 14.12.1992.
4. The Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner for being redesignated as a Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 1.4.1978 with all his salaries and other allowances. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner having not been in employment for a long period from 3.1.1977 to 13.12.1992 his prayer for giving him the status as L.D.C. w.e.f. 1.4.1978 (when he was not in employment) could not be entertained.
5. Mr. Moitra appearing for the petitioner submits that there was no valid termination of the petitioner's services as he was not given any opportunity of hearing when the Sub-Registrar did not allow him to join his work on 3.1.1977. Following are the decisions which Mr. Moitra cites in this connection:-
(1) AIR 1966 SC 1364, Mafatlal Naran Das Barot v. T.D. Rathor;
(2) AIR 2000 SC 1080, V. P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab & Ors. ;
(3) AIR 1991 SC 1286, Sri Rabinarayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa & Ors. ;
(4) AIR 1991 SC 101, Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors.
6. The decisions in AIR 1966 SC 1364 (supra), and AIR 1991 SC 101 (supra), are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it appears that in both the cited cases the employees whose services were terminated were permanent employees, while the petitioner was appointed temporarily purely on piece rate basis on a 'no work, no pay' system.
7. In AIR 2000 SC 1080 (supra), it has been held that even a probationer or a temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection and his service cannot be terminated arbitrarily nor can his service be terminated in a punitive manner, without complying with the principles of natural Justice.
8. It is further held in the said decision that an order which is ex facie stigmatic cannot be passed without any regular inquiry and giving the concerned employee an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case the petitioner was neither a probationer nor a temporary servant. He was functioning as a daily rated worker. It is true that the Sub-Registrar while disallowing the petitioner to join for duties on 3.1.1977 recorded that the petitioner's work had been
