Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUJOY PAUL, SMITA DAS DE
Deputy Secretary, Backward Classes Welfare & Tribal Development Directorate – Appellant
Versus
Subhasish Das – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employment benefits eligibility criteria outlined (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. judicial reasoning on withdrawal of appeals and its impact (Para 8 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. state's arguments regarding maintainability of appeals and review (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. affirmation of the learned single judge's decision on remuneration (Para 31 , 33) |
| 5. dismissal of appeals, confirmation of judgment (Para 32 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. These intra court appeals are arising out of Judgment of Learned Single Judge passed in WPA No. 11914 of 2021 decided on 8th February, 2024. Thus, with the consent of parties, these matters were analogously heard and decided by this common Judgment. Parties were heard on the question of maintainability as well as on merits.
Factual Backgrounds:
2. The Writ Petitioners/Respondent herein (hereinafter called as ‘employees’) filed WPA No. 11914 of 2021 seeking benefit of revised pay and emoluments as per the memorandums issued by the State Government from time to time.
3. The Government issued first memorandum on 16th September, 2011 and made it clear in Clause (iv) that remuneration of casual/daily rated/contractual workers who had not yet c
The court ruled that subsequent memoranda revised remuneration benefits, disregarding earlier cut-off service requirements, ensuring equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
The court allowed the appeal, asserting that the appellants fulfilled eligibility conditions for benefits under the memorandum, and emphasized that procedural issues should not impede justice.
The court ruled that retired ad hoc teachers must be considered for regularization under Section 33-G, regardless of their retirement status, emphasizing the importance of full bench rulings.
The court emphasized the limited power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enter into fact-finding and found no grounds for interference with the impugned order.
Reinstatement restores all benefits, including upgradation, despite the absence of backwages for the period out of service.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record; it cannot be used to reargue settled issues.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with the award is limited to cases of perversity of finding or when the award is based on erroneous evid....
Contempt proceedings are limited to determining willful disobedience of court orders and should not involve a re-evaluation of the merits of the underlying case.
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
