Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUJOY PAUL, SMITA DAS DE
Manowara Maji – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
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 re
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 subsequent memoranda revised remuneration benefits, disregarding earlier cut-off service requirements, ensuring equal treatment for similarly situated employees.
The court established that casual/daily rated workers engaged prior to a specified date are entitled to benefits under government memoranda, regardless of their engagement against sanctioned posts.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for State Authorities to produce necessary documents to establish the non-working of employees for 240 days, and the entitlement of....
The court upheld the principles of natural justice and directed the reinstatement of the petitioners with all consequential benefits, emphasizing the illegality of the termination and the deprivation....
A petitioner must disclose all material facts; failure to do so can result in dismissal of claims and costs imposed.
The court emphasized that it cannot examine disputed questions of fact in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the petitioners to file substantive proceedings ....
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
