Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, SHAMPA SARKAR, JJ.
The Secretary, Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Srinanda Baishnab & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.S.T. No. 151 of 2017
Decided On : 16-07-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Joytosh Majumder, Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Mr. S.P. Lahiri
For the Respondents: Mr. D.N. Ray, Mr. Sankha Ghosh, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah
The principle of constructive res judicata and the admissibility of belated claims under a new scheme were central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Constructive Res Judicata - Employment Dispute - West Bengal Administrative Tribunal - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Tarapada Roy & 28 Ors. vs. The State of W.B. & Ors., A.C. Roy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. - Notification nos. 301/302/303 EMP dated August 21, 2002
Fact of the Case:
The respondents sought employment under a scheme framed in 1997 by the State Government after their lands were acquired for the construction of Tista Barrage. They filed an original application before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of with directions. They filed a second application on the same cause of action after about 2 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second application should have been dismissed as it was not permissible on the same cause of action. The belated claim lodged after the introduction of a new scheme could not be entertained.
Issues: The issues involved the permissibility of filing a second application on the same cause of action, and the admissibility of a belated claim lodged after the introduction of a new scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the filing of the second application was not permissible on the same cause of action and that a belated claim lodged after the introduction of a new scheme could not be entertained.
Final Decision: The order impugned to this writ application was quashed and set aside, and the writ application was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.
1. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing a final order dated October 24, 2017 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in the original application by the judgment impugned. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the claim of the respondent nos. 1 to 23 were insulated with an order of the learned Tribunal passed in the matter of Tarapada Roy & 28 Ors. vs. The State of W.B. & Ors., dated December 13, 2012 falling within the ratio of the decision dated September 2, 2009 of the learned Tribunal in the matter of A.C. Roy & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. The learned Tribunal further directed the petitioners to take necessary steps within the period specified in the impugned final order.
2. The issue raised before the learned Tribunal by the respondent nos.1 to 23 was that the homestead lands owned and possessed either by themselves or by their predecessors were the source of their livelihood. Those lands were acquired by the instrumentality of State for construction of Tista Barrage. They claimed employment under the petitioners authority on the basis of a scheme framed in 1997 by the State Government for acquisition of their lands.
3. The petitioners filed an original application before the learned Tribunal in the matter of Tarapada Roy & 28 Ors. vs. The State of W.B. & Ors (In re:- O.A. No.969 of 2012). It was disposed of on December 13, 2012 with the following directions:-
“The State Respondent shall examine whether there was any panel for direct recruitment in the State Government including name of the present petitioners, in accordance with law and if really there is any panel for direct appointment, then only, the authority shall consider the appointment of the petitioners subject to available vacancy. If the petitioners have crossed their age for recruitment in Government Service, if their case is considered for appointment, the authority shall also considered the condonation of their age bar. The application is accordingly disposed of.”
4. According to the respondent nos.1 to 23, the State respondents did not comply with the aforesaid directions. The petitioners thereafter filed the original application before the learned Tribunal which gives rise to this writ application with the following prayers:-
“(a) An order do issue directing the respondent authorities to provide employment on compassionate ground to your applicants herein within a stipulated time period under land losers category, as the respondent authorities on the contrary vide No. 68-IE/2L-24/96 (Pt.) dated 13.01.2012 has already provided employment on compassionate ground to 16 nos. of applicants in connection with O.A. No. 14 of 1998 under land losers category in compliance to order dated 02.09.2009 passed in O.A. No. 14 of 1998, and further not to discriminate the applicants herein.”
(b) An order do issue directing the respondent authorities forthwith give appointment to the applicants on compassionate ground as an land losers candidate in any civil post such as Clerk, Group-D, under the establishment with out any further delay.
(c) A further order to issue directing the concerned respondent authorities to forthwith give appointment to the applicants on compassionate ground in any civil post such as Clerk, Group-D, as soon as the same is made available.
(d) An order do issue directing the concerned respondent authorities to transmit all the records before this Hon’ble Tribunal in ends of justice.
(e) Leave be granted under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 to file a single application by more than one applicant having regard to the cause of action and nature of relief prayed for, being the same.”
5. It will not be out of context to record here that another group of land losers whose land had been acquired for Tista Barrage approached the learned Tribunal in the matter of A.C. Roy & Ors.
