PARTHA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against a judgment and order dated 19.2.98 passed by the learned West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 17 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners was dismissed. By reasons of the said order, the learned Tribunal has upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents herein as regard maintainability of the said application stating, "the first technical objection taken on behalf of the private respondent is that the petition is not maintainable because the petitioners are 70 in number belong to different cadres holding different posts as would be evident from the cause title. We accept such submissions and hold that the petition in the present frame by different petitioners cannot be sustained because of mis-joinder of cause of action." The learned Tribunal further held that the petitioners cannot be granted any relief in terms of prayer (e) inasmuch as Rule 55(4) of the West Bengal Service Rules Part I cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. The fact of the matter is as follows :

(2.) The respondent No. 11 was initially appointed as Fishery Extension Officer. He was confirmed in the said post. His substantive pay in the said post was Rs. 1615/- in the scale of 1390-2970 on 1.1.1991. He thereafter was appointed (said to be upon tendering resignation) in the post of L.D. Assistant, in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-1920/-. The State of West Bengal by reason of an office Order dated 29th April, 1983 relying on or on the basis of Rule 42(1)(ii) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I, protected loss of his substantive pay by allowing him to draw a personal benefit of Rs. 25/- in addition thereto with effect from 1.6.1991 which would be absorbed in future increments. The petitioner as noticed hereinbefore, held different posts and different cadres while the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) Mr. K.K. Moitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein very vehemently submitted that having regard to the phraseology used in Rule 42(1)(ii) of the West Bengal Service Rules Part I quoted supra, the said order dated 29th April, 1993 could not have been passed as the said respondent had tendered his resignation and thus the question of his holding any lien does not arise. In support of the said contention strong reliance has been placed on a decision in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. Farid Sattar, 2000 2 SCT 468. When questioned as regards locus of the petitioners to maintain this application, the learned counsel submitted that the seniority of the petitioners would be in jeopardy. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event, seniors cannot be paid a salary lower their junior.