Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Shampa Sarkar, J.
Utpal Mistry And Others - Appellant
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Others - Respondent
IA No. GA/1/2021 In WPO/582/2019
Decided On : 05-05-2022
Addition of Parties - Service Matter - State of Rajasthan vs Ucchab Lal Chhanwal (2014) 1 SCC 1444, Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 167
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to be added as respondents in a writ petition challenging their upgradation and consequential financial benefits. The court considered the impact of the prayers on the applicants and the necessity of their presence in the proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants, as beneficiaries of the impugned memorandum, must be added as parties to the proceeding to safeguard their interests. The court directed the amendment of the cause title to incorporate the applicants as respondents.
Issues: Whether the applicants should be added as parties in the writ petition challenging their upgradation and financial benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in service matters where the inter se seniority is being challenged, the persons likely to be affected must be added as necessary/proper parties. The court also emphasized that the writ petition should not be decided without the persons vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for addition of the applicants as respondents in the writ petition and directed the department to amend the cause title accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Shampa Sarkar, J. - RE : IA No. GA/1/2021
1. GA 1 of 2021 is an application for addition of the applicants as respondent no. 8 to 18, in the writ petition, WPO 582 of 2019.
2. The applicants were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers (Civil) under Kolkata Municipal Corporation, on the basis of a recruitment process conducted by the Municipal Service Commission in the year 1996 and 1997. The writ petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were also recruited as Assistant Engineer (Civil) through the Municipal Service Commission in subsequent years and they joined sometime in 1999. The writ petitioner no. 4 was promoted as the Assistant Engineer civil from the post of Sub- Assistant Engineer (Civil). He had joined the post of Sub-assistant engineer sometime in 2000.
3. The applicants were promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) and thereafter were redesignated Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) in terms of the office order dated September 3, 2016, upon upgradation.
4. In the writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, challenged the order of upgradation dated September 3, 2016, by which, the applicants and some others were redesignated as Deputy Chief Engineer Civil and some financial benefits attached to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) were granted. Such re-designation took place on the basis of the seniority of the executive engineers as per the gradation list. The other prayers in the writ petition are for grant of notional promotion to the writ petitioners in the post of Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) with retrospective effect, from November 2020 as per the office order dated May 23, 2013. Such office order was issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KMC), in compliance with the order dated May 15, 2013 passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP no. 21394 (W) of 2000. The main prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-
(b) A writ and or a writ in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding concerned the cancel the respondents' authority and or their men or agents or assigns to set aside or to withdraw or rescind or cancel the decision dated 03.09.2016 and additional corrigendum incorporated in the resolution dated 24.08.2016 restricting the incumbents being Assistant Engineers appointed during July 1997 to June 1998;
(c) To grant notional promotion to the petitioners with effect from 20.11.2010 as per office order dated 23.05.2013 to the post Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil) with all financial benefits at par High Court's judgement and at part with Tarun Kanti Ghosh, Dipankar Pal and 13 Others in terms of order dated 23.05.2013 being Annexure " P-6.'
5. The memorandum dated September 3, 2016 had granted some benefits to the applicants and prayers have been made in the writ petition for quashing the same. The applicants state that when the prayers are directed against the benefits allowed to them, the court must give them an opportunity of hearing, before any order is passed in the writ petition in respect of the impugned memorandum dated September 3, 2016. The applicants have a right to support the office memorandum, which had favoured them with some service benefits.
6. It is further contended that KMC prepares a single gradation list in respect of the cadre, and if prayer (b), is allowed, the same will result in changing the position of the applicants in the gradation list. Even if the writ petitioners and the applicants belong to different categories, namely, schedule cast category and the general category respectively, any order passed in respect of prayer (b) will cause substantial change in the position of the applicants in the single gradation list maintained by the KMC.
7. Hence, on the above grounds, a prayer has been made for addition of the applicants as parties to the proceeding.
8. Reliance has been placed in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs Ucchab Lal Chhanwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 1444, in order to substantiate that in any service matter when inter se senio
In service matters, persons likely to be affected by the judgment should be added as necessary/proper parties to safeguard their interests.
Necessity of adding beneficiaries of an impugned order as parties to a proceeding challenging the order in a service matter.
The court emphasized the significance of considering the service in the supernumerary post as part of the sanctioned strength of the post of AE(C) and highlighted the principles of seniority calculat....
Court did not interfere with decision of Respondent Corporation in giving higher pay scale to employees having higher educational qualifications.
Temporary work arrangements or in-charge positions do not confer the right to claim promotion on par with juniors, and regular promotions should be granted following the rules and procedures.
Promotion eligibility must align with established seniority rules; arbitrary criteria violate judicial mandates requiring reasoned decisions in service matters.
Promotions on seniority-cum-merit basis require using final seniority list of feeder cadre from immediately preceding year; initial joining date irrelevant; non-speaking orders invalid; settled lists....
Employees who fail to raise timely and substantive objections to the Draft Gradation List and do not challenge the reasoned orders passed by the employer in connection therewith cannot seek relief at....
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
