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.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This intra court appeal assails the order passed by learned Single Judge in WP 7119 (W) of 2015 whereby their writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

2. This matter has a chequered history. The appellants initially filed WP 13850 (W) of 2012 which was disposed of on December 19, 2012, by directing the respondent no.1 therein to consider the representation of the appellants preferred on February 24, 2012 within the stipulated time. In turn, by rejection order dated December 19, 2012, the said representation of the appellants was rejected. The rejection is mainly for not satisfying twin conditions i.e. (i) the appellants have not completed 10 years of continuous service as on August 1, 2011; (ii) apart from this not completed 240 days engagement in each year. Being aggrieved, the appellants assailed the rejection order by filing WP 7119(W) of 2015.

3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated April 1, 2015, rejected the writ application. The present appeal assails the impugned order dated April 1, 2015.

4. Interestingly, the appellants filed another writ application being WP 8440 (W) of 2015 for the same relief. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on April 21, 2015 on the ground that it is hit by principle of res judicata. The appellants filed FMA 546 of 2020 challenging the order dated April 21, 2015 passed in WP 8440 (W) of 2015. However, since the delay was not condoned in filing FMA 546 of 2020, the said appeal was dismissed on October 3, 2018. Thus, adjudication is required only in FMA 541 of 2010.

Contention of the appellants:

5. Mr. Maitra, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants submits that when WP 7119 (W) of 2015 was filed, the appellants did not have the relevant documents with them. The documents are - (i) the proceeding of the meeting of the Enquiring Authority to enquire the casual daily-rated workers’ engagement in Social Forestry Division of Sundarban Development Authority on February 21, 2011; and (ii) the document dated March 1, 2011 of Sundarban Unnayan Parshad, Sundarban Bishayak Daftar, Paschim Banga (page 175).

6. By placing heavy reliance on these two documents, it is submitted that if these documents are carefully perused, it will be clear that the aforesaid essential two conditions are fully satisfied. If those conditions are satisfied, the appellants will be entitled to get the benefit flowing from memorandum no. 9008-F(P) dated September 16, 2011 (Annexure ‘P-3’). As per this memorandum, after having rendered certain years of service, the casual employees are entitled to get financial benefits. Thus, till such time the appellants continued with the department, they are entitled to get the difference of pay and benefits arising out of the said memorandum dated September 16, 2011.

7. It is strenuously contended that the department was custodian of these documents and they should have filed the same before the Single Bench. They should have considered these documents before rejecting the representation of the appellants. Thus, since these two documents clearly established the right of the appellants, they are entitled to enjoy the fruits of memorandum dated September 16, 2011.

Stand of the respondents:

8. Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that no fault can be found in the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 1, 2015 because the crucial documents were not filed before him. As per the material available on record, the learned Single Judge rightly opined that the twin conditions of Memo dated September 16, 2011 are not satisfied and hence rightly dismissed the writ petition.

9. The next submission of learned counsel for the State is that the said two documents have not been filed along with an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908. No reasons are also assigned as to why the said documents could not be filed before the