Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Cal) 935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
Gobinda Hazra - Petitioner
Versus
State of W.B. & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. 13147 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 13149 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 13151 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 13191 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 13194 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 13195 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 13197 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 13207 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 13209 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 24166 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 24167 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 24168 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 24169 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 31057 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 29553 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 4388 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 4386 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 29570 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 29564 (W) of 2017 With W.P. 29565 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 29560 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 29556 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 31056 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 21009 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 21010 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 21011 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 21012 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 21014 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 21016 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 21022 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 21041 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 24170 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 24171 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 25494 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 25492 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 1014 (W) of 2017 with W.P. 3197 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 3196 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 3198 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 3199 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 3200 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 3201 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 3202 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 3203 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 27686 (W) of 2015 with W.P. 7179 (W) of 2018 with W.P. 7172 (W) of 2018 with W.P. 328 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 24583 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 4590 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 30285 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 30279 (W) of 2016 with W.P. 5323 (W) of 2018 with W.P. 3529 (W) of 2012
Decided On : 26-06-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bibek Jyoti Basu, Mr. Uttam Kumar De, Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. S.S. Chatterjee, Mr. Santanu Maji, Ms. Snigdha Saha, Ms. Payel Shome, Mr. Sankar Biswas, Mr. Gurusaday Dey, Mr. Bidhyak Lahiri, Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Mr. Snehasis Jana, Ms. Tutun Das, Mr. Subhasish Banerjee, Mr. Partha Sarkar, Mr. Lal Ratan Mondal, Mr. Dilip Sadhu, Mr. Tilak Mitra, Ms. Dipanwita De, Mr. Bikash Shaw, Ms. Dipika Basu, Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya.
For the State : Mr. Joytosh Majumder, G.P., Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Mr. Avishek Prasad, Mr. Suvro Lahiri, Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya, Ms. Joyee Maiti, Mr. Tarakeswar Hazra, Md. Zakir Hossain, Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas, Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Mr. Suman Dey, Mr. Susanta Pal, Mr. Biswajit De, Ms. Rajlakshmi Ghatak, Md. Yasin Ali, Ms. Tapati Samanta, Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy, Ms. Manika Pandit, Mr. Abdus Salam, Mr. Kalimuddin Mondal, Mr. Bipin Ghosh, Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharya, Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Mr. S.K. Faridullah, Mr. Nilanjan Bandopadhyay, Mr. Soumya Roy, Mr. Suman Banerjee, Mr. Swarup Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya.

The court held that there is no scheme for grant of compassionate appointment for municipal employees and that municipal employees cannot be treated as employees of the State Government. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ petitions.

Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Municipal Employees - West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in State Government Establishments of Public Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities Act, 1998 - Section 1, Sub-Section (4), Section 2(7), Section 3(23) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 - West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 - Section 53, Section 54, Section 56, Section 57, Section 425 - No scheme for grant of compassionate appointment for municipal employees - Municipal employees cannot be treated as employees of the State Government - No relief entitled to the petitioners - Writ petitions dismissed

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. These writ petitions involve similar issues and are taken up for consideration analogously. Essentially, the petitioners seek compassionate appointment in the died-in-harness category for the family members of the deceased municipal employee.

2. Since a number of writ petitions are involved and since different counsel have advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners, it would be appropriate and convenient to collate the submissions on behalf of the petitioners as one and record the same accordingly.

3. The petitioners rely upon the provisions of the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in the State Government Establishments of Public Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities Act, 1998. The petitioners rely upon Section 1, Sub-Section (4) of the Act of 1999 and contend that, the Act of 1999 applies to all posts in State Government Establishments and Establishments of Public Undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities. Relying to Section 2(7) of the Act of 1999, the petitioners contend that, local authorities are defined therein. It has the same meaning as Sub-Section (23) of Section 3 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899. Section 3(23) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 defines a local authority. It stipulates that, a municipality would come within the definition of a local authority. Consequently, the Act of 1999 is applicable to a municipality. Moreover, the Act of 1999 deals with the method of appointment of employees to a municipality inasmuch as it provides that, the posts which are required to be filled up on the recommendations of the municipal authorities as noted in Sub-Section (4) of Section 1. The Act of 1999 allows the State Government to stipulate the persons who would be treated as falling within the exempted category. The exempted category, according to the petitioners, has been notified by the State Government, from time to time. In this regard three notifications all dated August 21, 2002 being Emp. 301, Emp. 302 and Emp. 303 are relied upon by the petitioners. The petitioners also rely upon Emp. 97, dated June 6, 2005, Emp. 142, dated November 1, 2007, Emp. 30, dated April 2, 2008 and Emp. 251, dated December 3, 2013 in support of the contentions that, there subsists a scheme for grant of compassionate appointment to employees in the died-in-harness category for all municipalities. According to the petitioners, the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment in such a situation can be found by reading Emp. 301 to 303, dated August 21, 2002 along with Emp. 30, dated April 2, 2008. The petitioners also rely upon Emp. 98, dated April 28, 2015.

4. Without prejudice to the first contention and thereto, it is contended by the petitioners that, the provisions of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 if read harmoniously, provides that, an employee of the municipality should be treated as a State Government employee. According to the petitioners, the State Government employees have a subsisting scheme for grant of compassionate appointment. Since an employee of a municipality is to be treated on the same position as that of a State Government employee, then the scheme governing the State government employee should also apply for an employee of the municipality. There being a subsisting scheme for the State Government employees, the municipal employee should also receive the same benefit. In support of the contentions that, an employee of the municipality is to be treated as an employee of the State reliance is placed on Section 53 (1), Section 54 (2) and (3) as also Section 56, Section 57 and Section 425 of the Act of 1993.

5. It is next contended on behalf of the petitioners that, assuming that, the municipal employee cannot be treated to be at par with that of the employee of the State Government, then also, the Service Rules governing a State Government employee should apply so far as the municipal employees are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(Cal) 935

The court held that there is no scheme for grant of compassionate appointment for municipal employees and that municipal employees cannot be treated as employees of the State Government. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the writ petitions.

Cases Referred (10)