SUBHANGSHUMAN DE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents particularly the respondents nos. 5, 6 & 7 to allow the petitioner to resume his service as Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering Department at Durgapur Institute of Advance Technology and Management forthwith and other consequential reliefs. The short fact is that, by a letter of appointment from the respondent institute, the petitioner was appointed Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering Department on probation for one year from the date of joining with the service condition that the petitioner would be liable to be terminated at any time with one month's notice or pay in lieu of that from either side. It was also indicated that the petitioner would be entitled to enjoy leave as per institute rules. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the institute of the respondent on July 2, 2010. Then on July 2, 2011 when the petitioner was coming to the college by a car along with the National Highway - 34, the car met with an accident causing the petitioner severely injured on different parts of his body including the head and an F.I.R. was lodged accordingly. The brother of the petitioner informed the respondent institute on July 5, 2011 of the accident. After prolonged treatment, when the petitioner went to join his service on January 31, 2012, he was not allowed to join his duty. The respondent did not issue any intimation to the petitioner to join the college as Lecturer and as such, this application has been preferred.

(2.) NOW , the question is whether the actions of the respondent is justified in not allowing the petitioner to join the service. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that it is unfortunate to describe that the petitioner met with an accident just on completion of one year of service from the date of joining. As per medical papers, the petitioner was treated at the local hospital at District Nadia and then he was under treatment at Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, Kolkata from July 2, 2011 to July 16, 2011. At the time of release from the said hospital, it was recorded that the petitioner was stable on the date of release. So, it was expected that immediately after the release from the said hospital on July 16, 2011 he should contact the respondent institute to take appropriate steps for regularization of the leave as per rules of the Institute. He did not do so.

(3.) AS recorded above, the petitioner was on probation up to July 1, 2011. The petitioner has stated that pursuant to the verbal discussion on February 7, 2012 with the Director of the respondent institute, the petitioner went to join on February 13, 2012, which was denied. Thereafter, this case was filed on February 20, 2012. Under the above circumstances, instead of giving any positive orders, I am of the view that the respondent institute should be directed to consider the letters of the writ petitioner appearing as Annexure P-4 at Page no.27 and Annexure P-5 at Page no.29 within a certain period.