Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Rajesh Bindal, Aniruddha Roy, JJ.
Arindam Roy - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.S.T. No. 107 of 2020
Decided On : 19-01-2021
Lien - Employment Dispute - West Bengal Medical Service - 1971 Rules, 1979 Rules - The judgment discusses the petitioner's right to retain lien on the post he is working while pursuing a new assignment with AIIMS. The court analyzes the relevant rules and laws governing the petitioner's employment, including the 1971 Rules and 1979 Rules, and interprets the conditions for acquiring a lien on a permanent post. The court dismisses the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the right of lien as he is not holding a permanent post in a substantive capacity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a doctor, sought to retain lien on his current post while joining AIIMS. The State authorities denied his right, leading to the filing of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not become a permanent employee and was not entitled to retain lien on the post he is working. It emphasized the lack of a formal declaration for confirmation and the absence of a permanent appointment, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had become a permanent employee and was entitled to retain lien on his current post while pursuing a new assignment with AIIMS.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not meet the conditions for acquiring a lien on a permanent post, as he had not been confirmed as a permanent employee and was still in probation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, noting the lack of merit and observing the casualness with which the second respondent had acted. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Aniruddha Roy, J. - The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated December 9, 2020 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 434 of 2020 (Dr. Arindam Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) (for short 'theOriginal Application') whereby the said Original Application filed by the writ petitioner was disposed of directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated November 11, 2020, filed by the petitioner by passing a reasoned order and to make necessary communication thereof.
2. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is an extreme urgency in the matter. In case the petitioner is not allowed to join AIIMS by January 21, 2020, he will lose the opportunity and would suffer immense and irreversible injury and prejudice. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for redressal of his grievance completely in this present writ petition on merit of its case. Considering such prayer and finding a urgency in the matter this Court proceeds to hear the petitioner on merit for final disposal of the writ petition, even though the representation filed by the petitioner has not yet been decided by the first respondent. The parties had also agreed to the same.
3. It is the arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondents, as alleged by the petitioner, by not allowing him to join on the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology at All India Institute of Medical Science (for short 'the AIIMS'), Kalyani,retaining his lien on the post he is working presently, is under challenge in the present petition.
4. The petitioner on September 4, 2017 had joined the West Bengal Medical Education Service (for short 'the State Medical Service'), Department of Health and Family Welfare as a Resident Medical Officer-cum-Clinical Tutor (for short 'the RMO'), pursuant to notification dated August 7, 2017, in the Department of Ophthalmology, NRS Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata (for short 'the Medical College').After his joining at the Medical College, the petitioner was posted on detailment at Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, MCH Campus, Medical College, Kolkata, pursuant to an office order dated May 22, 2018. The petitioner is presently serving at the said detailed Post.
5. Pursuant to an advertisement dated January 22, 2019 issued by the AIIMS for the Post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner applied for the same and received a call for interview. The petitioner vide hisletter dated March 5, 2019 applied to the second respondent requesting to grant him "No Objection Certificate" to enable him to appear in the said interview.The second respondent by its communication dated March 14, 2019issued permission in favour of several candidates including the petitioner.The permission granted by the second respondent also stipulated that the it was meant for 'appearing in the interview only'.The candidates had to obey F.D. Memo No. 4499-F(P) dated August 26, 2016 and the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971 (for short 'the 1971 Rules') and also the discretionary power of the authority.On the same day i.e. March 14, 2019 the second respondent also granted a 'No Objection Certificate'in favour of the petitioner to the extent that if he is selected for the Post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology in AIIMS, he would be relieved from duty to take up the said Post in AIIMS.
6. On October 22, 2020 the appointment letter was issued by AIIMS in favour of the petitioner containing the terms and conditions of his appointment.
7. The petitioner vide his letter dated November 11, 2020 made a representation to the respondents and requested for retaining his lien on the post he is working and let him join on the post of Assistant Professor, Ophthalmology at AIIMS. No heed was paid to the said representation.
8. The petitioner claimed that he has a right to retain lien on the substantive post in the State Medical Servi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
