SANKARI RAJAK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions being W.P.S.T 520 of 2010 and W.P.S.T 155 of 2016 are arising out of O.A 732 of 2002 and O.A 731 of 2002 respectively have been preferred challenging a common order dated 12th Feb., 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal in both the original applications and as such both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. By an order dated 7th May, 2002 the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Birbhum terminated the services of the petitioners and others who were appointed in Group-D posts in compliance of an order passed by the Honourable High Court in C.O No.3318 (W) of 1999. The said order was challenged by the petitioners herein and others by preferring two original applications being O.A 731 of 2002 and O.A 732 of 2002. The said original applications were dismissed by an order dated 12th Feb., 2010. Challenging the said order passed by the learned Tribunal, two of the original applicants, namely, Sankari Rajak and Smt. Renu Bala Dey @ Renu Dey filed writ petitions being WPST 520 of 2010 and WPST 40 of 2011 respectively. Unfortunately, the writ petition filed by Sankari Rajak remained pending whereas the writ petition filed by Smt. Renu Bala Dey @ Renu Dey was heard and allowed by a judgment dated 22nd Sept., 2014 setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal dated 12th Feb., 2010 and the order of the Block Medical Officer of Health dated 7th May, 2002 so far as the petitioner in the said writ petition was concerned and the respondents were directed to reinstate the said petitioner and to pay her full back wages and to give her all other service benefits to which she would have been entitled in the absence of the termination order dated 7th May, 2002. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State respondents preferred a Special Leave Petition and the same was dismissed by an order dated 14th Dec., 2015. Subsequent thereto, the writ petitioner in WPST 40 of 2011 was given all the benefits in terms of the judgment dated 22nd Sept., 2014. However, the writ petition being WPST 155 of 2016 was preferred by the petitioners after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on 14th Dec., 2015.

(2.) Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submits that for non disposal of the writ petition being WPST 520 of 2010, which was filed even before the writ petition WPST 40 of 2011, the writ petitioner therein (Sankari Rajak) cannot be made to suffer and cannot be denied the benefits as disbursed in favour of Renu Dey.

(3.) He further submits that the order dated 12th Feb., 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal was also challenged by the petitioners in WPST 155 of 2016 though belatedly, however, such delay was unintentional and as such the benefits extended to Smt. Renu Bala Dey cannot be denied to the petitioners since they are similarly situated. The action of the State in contesting the petitioners' claim, which was rightful and legitimate, cannot be accepted from a welfare State.