SASANKA NARAYAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fifty-six persons have joined together in this writ petition. They are working as drivers with the designation "casual bus driver," on being appointed as such, by the second respondent, Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Limited.

(2.) The first bundle of undisputed facts is this. The second respondent introduced the bus division, and in course of time acquired a fleet of 300 buses; 192 of them regularly ply on routes. For recruiting drivers it published employment notices to invite applications, tested and interviewed the candidates, prepared select lists, got the selected candidates medically examined, and finally appointed the successful ones without any formal appointment letters. From the very inception the drivers were appointed with the designation "casual bus driver". Through same processes and with same designation, the petitioners were appointed during the period from December 23rd, 1994 to September 11th, 2001.

(3.) The further undisputed facts, which I treat as the second essential bundle of facts for deciding the issues in the case, are these. On January 1st, 1999 the Transport Department of the Government of West Bengal (the first respondent) issued an order for sanctioning, as a special case, regularization of 350 such casual bus drivers. It was mentioned that in future no further regularization would be allowed, and that all appointments should be made following existing rules and norms. On the basis of the order, the second respondent made 294 casual bus drivers permanent. Simultaneously it went on appointing drivers with the designation "casual bus driver." At the present moment there are 336 such bus drivers, including the petitioners in the present case. The conditions of service of the employees of the second respondent are governed by the duly framed standing orders, certified by the competent authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders), Act, 1946, Section 5(3).