CHANDESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra-court appeals are directed against the order dtd. 13/4/2021 passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P.O No. 429 of 2020, W.P.O No. 439 of 2020, W.P.O No. 441 of 2020, W.P.O No. 432 of 2020 and W.P.O No. 427 of 2020 whereby the writ petitions were dismissed in terms of the order passed in W.P.O No. 429 of 2020 which also disposed of G.A No. 1 of 2021.

(2.) The appellants filed the writ petitions principally against respondent no. 2, a Corporation incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having perpetual existence and a common seal. The respondent Corporation is a Government of West Bengal undertaking and is under the administrative control of the Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, therefore being in the nature of an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The appellants, who are employees under respondent no. 2, sought for the benefit of 3rd Career Advancement as specified in Clause 4 of the Guidelines for Career Advancement Scheme framed by The Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Limited on 24th of August, 2007. The Learned Single Judge to the contrary has held that the Government of West Bengal by a Memorandum No. 7552(80) -F dtd. 4/9/2000 has specifically directed implementation of Memorandum No. 6075-F dtd. 21/6/1990 as the scheme for career advancement for employees of corporations, inter alia, the respondent No. 2 company and the communication dtd. 14/8/2007 has reiterated that Memorandum No 7552 (80)-F dtd. 4/9/2000 would apply to the employees of the WBTC Limited which refers to CAS 1990. The Guidelines framed by the Board of WBTC Limited being inconsistent with such permission extended by the Government to the Undertakings, was deemed void and unenforceable to that extent. It was held by the Learned Single Judge that the principle of estoppel cannot be applied against WBTC Limited, since there is no estoppel against law and the claim of the writ petitioners was dismissed.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dtd. 13/4/2021 passed by Learned Single Judge, the instant appeals have been preferred on the substantial grounds as follows: "VI For that the real question in dispute as to which memorandum is to be followed for the purpose of grant of CAS (Career Advancement Scheme) in respondent corporation, i.e. whether the memorandum of 1990 which prescribes for grant of 2 CAS or memorandum of 2001 which prescribes for grant of 3 CAS would apply and whether memorandum of 2001 can be extended towards the employees of respondent Corporation like those in cases of State Government employees in line with the Guideline prepared by the respondent Corporation as reflected in the impugned order."