The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the time spent by the plaintiff in pursuing legal proceedings, thereby allowing the suit to proceed and the award of compensation for wrongful termination.

ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.

1. This case has a chequered history. A tender notice dated 15 July, 2004 was issued by the Office of the Director, Kolkata GPO inviting applications for appointment as Professional Letter Writers (in short “PLW”) at the Kolkata GPO for the period 2004-2006. The plaintiff applied along with other persons. The plaintiff tender was accepted as recorded in a Memo dated 11 August, 2004 issued by the Director of Kolkata GPO. The plaintiff started operating as a PLW at the Kolkata GPO.

2. By a notice dated 4 March, 2005 the permission issued to the plaintiff to operate as PLW was terminated with immediate effect.

3. The plaintiff challenged such termination by filing WP No. 6082 (W) of 2005 in this Court. By a judgment and order dated 6 July, 2007 the order of termination was set aside primarily on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The operative portion of the said judgment and order reads as follows:-

“Under these circumstances, the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained and same is set aside, and the Director, Kolkata GPO who had considered the matter earlier is directed to consider the matter afresh, upon giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and upon making available to him the copies of the complaints which formed the basis of the proceeding against the petitioner.

I am also of the opinion that the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature and accordingly, till the matter is finally resolved, the petitioner ought not be allowed to work as Profession Letter Writer. The decision by the Director, Kolkata GPO, shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The petitioner shall be entitled to participate in fresh tender in the mean time but in the event, he is found guilty of any misconduct, then, his offer shall not be accepted and till the Director of Kolkata GPO decides the matter, within the period stipulated above, he shall not be entitled to work as Professional Letter Writer even if selected in the Tender”.

4. Subsequent to the said order the defendant no. 2 gave a hearing to the plaintiff and passed an order dated 11 September, 2007 whereby he rejected the tender submitted by the plaintiff for the period 1 September, 2007 to 31 August, 2010 and also ordered that the plaintiff would not be given any more opportunities in future to participate in the tender process for selecting PLWs at the Kolkata GPO.

5. The plaintiff again approached this Court by filing WP No. 22355 (W) of 2007 alleging that copies of complaints on the basis of which proceedings had been initiated against him were served upon him only on 30 August, 2007. i.e., the date of hearing itself and hence he did not have sufficient opportunity to consider such documents. By a judgment and order dated 29 August, 2008 this Court held that the plaintiff did not get a reasonable opportunity of hearing and accordingly set aside the order of the defendant no. 2 dated 11 September, 2007. The operative portion of the said judgment and order reads as follows:-

“The writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2007 being annexure P- 8 to the writ petition and by granting leave to the petitioner to file his written objection, as aforesaid, if any, within three weeks from this date and by directing the respondent No 2 to consider the matter in dispute afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the said matter by passing a speaking order within eight weeks from this date.

It is made clear that if the petitioner intends to make oral submissions at the time of hearing, the respondent No 2 shall allow the petitioner to make his oral submissions. This court is of the view that since the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner should not be allowed to work as Professional Letter Writer till the matter is finally resolved”.

6. Pursuant to th