SASABINDU SAHU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Writ petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) The petitioners joined the Public Works Department in the scale of Rs. 135/- to Rs. 180/- in the year 1973. Thereafter they were directed to be promoted to the post of work Assistant under Work Charged Establishment in the Scale of Rs. 300-10-400-15-565-20-665/- plus usual allowances and were posted by office order issued from Midnapure being No.295 dated 21st December, 1985. They came to know that the said order of promotion was directed to be kept in abeyance until further orders vide order dated 6th January, 1986 issued by Respondent No.4. Thereafter the order of keeping the promotion in abeyance was withdrawn and the petitioners were directed to be released from the present post and to report as Work Assistants in the new place of posting by order dated 8th January, 1986 and they joined the promotional post of Work Assistants. Again recently the petitioners came to know that the promotion order has been cancelled by order dated 21st March, 1986 issued by Respondent No. 2. The petitioners have come to know that the petitioner's are going to be reverted to the previous posts under Group-D without any reason in a most arbitrary and malafide way. The orders have not yet been served but are expected to be served and already have been issued on 19th April, 1986 by Respondent No.4 pursuant to the order dated 21st March, 1986. It is stated by the petitioners that reversion from a substantive post of promotion to a lower post without giving the petitioners any reasonable opportunity of being heard and without assigning any reasonable cause is just high-handedness and violative of the principles of natural justice and equity and is a penal consequence as well as the stigma in their service career. There was no disciplinary proceeding pending against the petitioners and they were not served with any show cause notice. Hence the writ petition for commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order of cancellation of the promotion dated 21st March, 1986 and not to enforce the same by order dated 19th April, 1986. The Hon'ble Court granted an interim order of status quo on 7th May, 1986.

(3.) The respondents by an Affidavit-in-opposition contested the Writ petitions and stated that promotion policy was laid down on the basis of the graduation list of qualified Group-D Staff and the petitioners were promoted to the posts of Work Assistant on seniority basis. Due to the sudden spurt in the constructional activities and simultaneously launching of a number of schemes under 7th Five-Year Plan the circle was in the dire need of some additional number of Work Assistants. But by imposition of an embargo upon the recruitment of L.D. Assistant the promotional prospect of qualified Group 'D' Staff was diminished. It contended that the work of Work Assistant under Work Charged Establishment was temporary and the petitioners were never promoted on substantive basis and therefore the promotional order issued earlier was cancelled and all the promotees including the petitioners were directed to be reverted to their original posts. It was further contended that by virtue of order dated 18th July, 1964 if any order was issued and was afterwards detected not to have been issued as per Government Order, the authority has the right to cancel the same. When reversion is made on administrative ground the question of framing show cause of charges do not arise and there is no violation of natural justice.