The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of different memorandums (CAS 1990, CAS 2001) to the Career Advancement Scheme for employees of a government undertaking. The judgment also emphasizes the legal implications of estoppel and the fundamental right of employees to be considered for promotion.

JUDGMENT

Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - These intra-court appeals are directed against the order dated 13.04.2021 passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P.O No. 429 of 2020, W.P.O No. 439 of 2020, W.P.O No. 441 of 2020, W.P.O No. 432 of 2020 and W.P.O No. 427 of 2020 whereby the writ petitions were dismissed in terms of the order passed in W.P.O No. 429 of 2020 which also disposed of G.A No. 1 of 2021.

2. The appellants filed the writ petitions principally against respondent no. 2, a Corporation incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having perpetual existence and a common seal. The respondent Corporation is a Government of West Bengal undertaking and is under the administrative control of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, therefore being in the nature of an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellants, who are employees under respondent no. 2, sought for the benefit of 3rd Career Advancement as specified in Clause 4 of the Guidelines for Career Advancement Scheme framed by The Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Limited on 24th of August, 2007. The Learned Single Judge to the contrary has held that the Government of West Bengal by a Memorandum No. 7552(80) -F dated 4th September, 2000 has specifically directed implementation of Memorandum No. 6075-F dated 21st June, 1990 as the scheme for career advancement for employees of corporations, inter alia, the respondent No. 2 company and the communication dated 14th August, 2007 has reiterated that Memorandum No 7552 (80)-F dated 4th September, 2000 would apply to the employees of the WBTC Limited which refers to CAS 1990. The Guidelines framed by the Board of WBTC Limited being inconsistent with such permission extended by the Government to the Undertakings, was deemed void and unenforceable to that extent. It was held by the Learned Single Judge that the principle of estoppel cannot be applied against WBTC Limited, since there is no estoppel against law and the claim of the writ petitioners was dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.04.2021 passed by Learned Single Judge, the instant appeals have been preferred on the substantial grounds as follows: 'VI For that the real question in dispute as to which memorandum is to be followed for the purpose of grant of CAS (Career Advancement Scheme) in respondent corporation, i.e. whether the memorandum of 1990 which prescribes for grant of 2 CAS or memorandum of 2001 which prescribes for grant of 3 CAS would apply and whether memorandum of 2001 can be extended towards the employees of respondent Corporation like those in cases of State Government employees in line with the Guideline prepared by the respondent Corporation as reflected in the impugned order.'

4. Further case of the appellants that under the Guideline prepared by the respondent Corporation several employees including Chief Accounts Officer of Respondent Corporation were granted the benefit of CAS on completion of 10/8 years, 16th year and lastly on completion of 25 years.

5. It is urged that Hon'ble Single Judge erred in law in considering that the Government, for financial reasons, did not implement the 2001 Notification and failed to appreciate that CAS benefit given to employees who have not received any promotion or any hike in pay for a prolonged period is a legally enforceable right and the grant of CAS was implemented in 2007 when 2001 memorandum was in force in suppression of memorandum of 1990.

6. Mr. Debdutta Basu, learned advocate for the appellants, argued that after 13th March, 2001, a particular portion of the memo no 6075- F, dated 21.06.1990 did not exist since it was expunged by order no 3015- F, dated 13.03.2001 and the said cannot be followed any more. Furthermore, in W.P.O No. 621 of 2013 (Suvra Kumar Dey Vs State of West Bengal and ors) the respondent State took advantage by arguing that the intention of the government was