IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Krishna Rao, J.
Bimal Debnath - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPA No. 488 of 2021, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2022
fraud - non-teaching staff appointment - W.P.No. 24096(W) of 2009 - U.P.S.E.B vs. Pooram Chandra Pandey, Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand - The court discussed the approval of non-teaching staff appointments, the recall of orders, and the application of legal decisions in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the release of withheld salary and other financial benefits after obtaining a favorable order for non-teaching staff appointment in 2010. The respondents stopped the petitioner's salary in 2020 without providing a reason.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order obtained by the petitioner was similar to another order that was recalled due to the application of a legal decision that was subsequently held to be bad in law. The court dismissed the writ petition and the associated application.
Issues: Approval of non-teaching staff appointments, recall of orders, and stoppage of salary without reason.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order obtained by the petitioner was based on a legal decision that was later deemed bad in law, and thus the stoppage of salary was justified.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the associated application was also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Krishna Rao, J. - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to grant and release the entire amount of money payable to the petitioner which was withheld by the respondents as well as all other financial/monetary service benefits which the petitioner is entitled.
In the first round of litigation in W.P.No. 24096(W) of 2009 (Prahlad Biswas and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) the petitioner was one of the writ petitioner as petitioner No. 4, and have prayed for grant of approval of appointment as non-teaching staff (Group-D) of a recognized secondary school, namely, Taherpur Lalbahadur Shastri Vidyapith(High), Taherpur Disctrict-Nadia.
The said writ petition was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19/11/2010 by passing the following order.
'In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the District Inspector of schools namely D.I. of Schools (SE) Nadia should immediately approve the appointments of all the petitioners made by the Managing Committee of the schools, way back in the year 1994 onwards being to the petition appearing in the petition thereof. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia is therefore, directed to approve the appointments of the petitioners within a period four weeks from date of communication of this order and once the appointments are approved the petitioners will be entitled to receive salary month by month without any interruption.
In passing the above order the decision of the Supreme Court cited in support of the case of the writ petitioner, namely U.P. State Electricity Board -Vs-Purna Chandra Pandey & Ors., reported in 2008, I.C.L.J. (S.C.) is taken into account together with the earlier decisions of this Court'
In terms of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 19/11/2010, the District Inspector of School (S.E.), Nadia dated 22/06/2017 issued a Memo No. 173/Law/SE dt.22.6.2017 wherein the appointment of the petitioner as non-teaching staff of the school has been approved w.e.f. 19/11/2010.
after the approval of the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was getting his regular salary from the school authorities.
On 09/11/2020, the additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Ranaghat Sub-Division, Nadia vide Memo No. 146/G/RS, it was informed to the Deputy Director of School Education (Law), Bikash Bhavan, Kolkata-91, inter alia,
' With due respect, I beg to inform you that the above named three (03) employees were duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia vide memo no. i) 40/Law/SE, dated 29/01/2018, ii) 173/Law/SE, dated 22/04//2017 & iii) 57/Law/SE, dated 31/10/2-18 to comply with the respective court's order. On receipt of the prayer from the concern School authority (Sa) & after profile finalization the salary were released against above three (03) employees on a regular basis upto January,2020.
But as per solemn order passed by the Hon'ble Justice Raj Sekhar Mantha of Calcutta High Court dated 04/02/2020 in CaN 3930 of 2018 as well as a letter from assistant Directors of School Education vide meo no.127/1(2)-LS dated 11/02/2020 and with the telephonic direction from District Inspector of Schools, Ranaghat Sub-Division, Nadia vide his memo no. 47/G/RS, dated 25/02/2020 issued letter to the concern Sa not to release salaries from February 2020. On the above, salaries of the three above named employees are still shop now.
Hence, the above named employees now submitted their prayer to release their due salaries as they are all hand to mouth during tyhis pandemic situation. The Learned advocates of Calcutta High Court also submitted a letter regarding release of stop salaries and give a certificate in this regard. From the part of the employees concern prayer along with necessary papers dated 08/09/2020 has already been submitted sto the end of District Inspector of Schools (SE), Nadia for release of pending salaries, but no responses has received by our offic
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand (2008) 10 SCC 1
U.P.S.E.B vs. Pooram Chandra Pandey reproted in (2007) 11 SCC 92
The application of legal decisions and the subsequent recall of orders based on those decisions influenced the court's decision in justifying the stoppage of salary.
The power of review/revision can only be exercised if provided under the statute. The reservation policy is not required to be followed in minority schools.
The court affirmed the principle that school staff must receive due salary and benefits unless proven otherwise, emphasizing continuity of service without interruption or unjust denial.
The court affirmed that a teacher's continuity of service must be upheld unless substantiated by evidence; the withholding of salary without due process constitutes a violation of rights.
The court reaffirmed that judicial decisions regarding employment rights must be respected, and that grounds for termination or denial of appointment must be substantiated with valid evidence, partic....
The court clarified the employment status of the petitioner and directed verification of salary arrears computation, emphasizing the need for proper documentation.
An Education Officer cannot unilaterally revoke prior approvals for educational appointments without demonstrating fraud or misrepresentation, highlighting the necessity of legal process and justific....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.