BENUKAR MAHATA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of J. P. Hitter, J. dated the 22nd of April 1959 discharging a Rule issued under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are shortly as follows: On 5th April, 1948 the appellant was employed as a Junior Accountant under the Assistant Regional Controller of Procurement at a monthly pay of Rs. 60/ -. On 5th July, 1949 he was promoted to the rank of an Accountant and according to the appellant the scale of pay of the appellant was on the time scale basis of Rs. 80/ - per month in the scale of Rs. 80 -85 -5/2 -120. The details of the time scale of pay are given in paragraph 4 of the petition and the appellant alleges that he got his pay on the said scale up to 31st January, 1954; but he was informed by the Assistant Director of Procurement and supply (Personnel), Food and Supply Department, by a memorandum dated 30 -1 -54 that the appellant would get a fixed nay of Rs. 80/ - instead of his salary of Rs. 120/ -. The memorandum also contained a direction that the drawing of the increment by the Accountants in the scale of pay of Rs. 80 -85 -5/2 -120 should be stopped immediately. It is said that by reason of the said order the appellant got a much lesser amount than he was entitled to on the original time scale basis and he suffered a total loss of about Rs. 552/ - between the period of 1st February 1954 and 4th July 1956 and further loss would be sustained by him in future. The appellant thereupon made several appeals and representations to the authorities concerned between 16th February 1954 and 30th June 1956 challenging the legality of the order of reduction of the pay and stoppage of further increments and also complaining about the discrimination made between the post of Accountant and the Upper Division Clerks although they were initially treated as being in the same cadre and entitled to the same time scale of pay of Rs. 80 -85 -5/2 -120 and although in or about September 1954 and thereafter hopes had been held out of recalling the order of reduction of pay, ultimately the appellant was informed that the order would stand. Thereafter the appellant moved this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution and a Rule Nisi was issued by Sinha J. on the 31st July 1956, This Rule finally came up for hearing before J. P. Mitter J. who by his judgment delivered on the 22nd April, 1959 discharged the Rule as already stated. It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.

(3.) WE think that there is considerable force in these observations of the learned Judge. The order dated the 5/6th July 1949 promoting the petitioner to the post of Accountant, which is annexure 'A' to the petition, shows that the appellant was promoted on a purely temporary basis. He has not been able to produce any material before the Court to show that his right to get his pay as claimed by him rests on any valid or enforceable contract or he has any enforceable legal right in respect thereof.