Pradhan, Kanduah Gram Panchayat vs Niva Bachar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 675

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, APURBA SINHA RAY, JJ.
The Pradhan, Kanduah Gram Panchayat & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Niva Bachar & Ors. – Respondents
MAT 1374 of 2019 With I.A. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 9635 of 2019)
Decided on : 11-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Anita Shaw, Adv., Ms. T. Khatun, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jahar Lal De, Adv., Mr. Abdus Salam, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Mekhla Sinha, Adv., Mr. I. N. Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. D.K. Chandra, Adv.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Absorption of service - Nullifying her absorption - Challenged - Held, appellants did not submit any affidavit in opposition against the writ petition being Writ Petition No. 21210(W) of 2015 bringing on record their allegations against the writ petitioner and without doing so the appellant straightaway terminated the temporary service of the writ petitioner on 31.10.2017 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner - When a matter is pending before a Court of law and when the Hon’ble Court is in seisin of a legal issue, administrative prudence and propriety requires that such subject matter of the legal issue should remain undisturbed and should be left for necessary judicial decision on the relevant subject matter. But in this case it is found that the appellant terminated the temporary service of the writ petitioner without paying any heed that it might affect the legal issue which is being considered by the Learned Single Judge in the relevant writ petition -Appeal is Disposed of

JUDGMENT :

Apurba Sinha Ray, J.

1. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 28.06.2019 passed in W.P. No. 27010(W) of 2017 and W.P. No. 21210(W) of 2015 the appellant has filed the instant appeal on the grounds, inter alia:-

a. that the Learned Single Judge erred in law and in fact, in passing the impugned order,

b. that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner/respondent read upto Class-IV as on 10.12.1990,

c. that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that in the year 1998, the writ petitioner/respondent had filed a writ petition being WP No. 9546 (W) of 1998, by which this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the State respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner for absorption,

d. that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that a second writ petition was filed being No. 5964(W) of 2006 in which on 20.02.2009 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh by quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Howrah which was passed against the petitioner nullifying her absorption and was a subject matter of challenge in WP No. 5964(W) of 2006.

e. that the Learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the respondent/writ petitioner filed a contempt application being No. WPCRC 64(W) of 2010 in connection with WP No. 5964(W) of 2006 for compliance in which, it was found by the Hon’ble Court that the mark sheet and transfer certificate shown by the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 are fabricated and procured wherein the Hon’ble Court further directed District Inspector, Howrah to investigate into the circumstances, in which, the mark sheet and transfer certificate was issued and to lodge appropriate criminal and disciplinary proceeding against the Head Master of the School, who issued the transfer certificate,

f. that the Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that challenging two interim orders passed in W.P. No. 21210(W) of 2015 a Mandamus Appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Division Bench being FMA No. 957 of 2017 with CAN 7224 of 2017 with CAN 7469 of 2017 by the present appellant, in which, the Hon’ble Court allowed the appeal after setting aside the two interim orders dated 04.04.2016 and 18.04.2016, by which, the Hon’ble Single Bench first was pleased to direct the Prodhan (Appellant) to pay Rs. 1,000/-as the remuneration of the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 and, when not paid, directed to be paid from the salary of the Prodhan,

g. that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that on 31.10.2017, the writ petitioner/respondent was terminated from the casual/temporary job of the Panchayat upon giving proper reasoning,

h. that challenging the said order, the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 had come to this Court by filing a fresh writ petition being W.P. No. 27010(W) of 2017,

i. that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that in the writ petitions being W.P. No. 27010(W) of 2017 and W.P. No. 21210(W) of 2015, the age of the petitioner which has been disclosed in the affidavit pages, differs from the age of the petitioner shown in the voter list of Sankrail Constituency published in the year 2016, wherein the petitioner’s age has been shown as 62 years, and during the pendency of the writ petition, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct the state respondents to file a comprehensive report on the entire issue of the appointment and selection of the writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 but the said report was not considered by the Hon’ble First Court in spite of the report being placed before the Hon’ble First Court.

j. that the Hon’ble Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the writ petitioner/respondent used to come to the office of the Panchayat continuously after 11:00 a.m. which was beyond the normal office time,

k. that the order of termination was issued against the writ petitioner/respondent, after mentioning that the writ petitioner/re