ASIM KUMAR CHAKRABARTI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order No. 7 dated November 19, 2018 passed in O.A. No. 1238 of 2016 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. By this order, the learned Tribunal disposed of the original application after holding that there was no merit in it and thereby rejected the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to pensionary benefits.

(2.) It is not in dispute that a selection process was duly held in respect whereof a panel had been appeared for the post of "patrolman" under the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal on November 16, 1990. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was empanelled in it. Though the life of a panel is normally one year or at the most two years, as the relevant rules ordain, this panel was allowed to continue for almost 8 (eight) years until by a Memo dated January 8, 1999 it was cancelled by an order dated December 17, 1998 purportedly due to non-availability of vacancy. This deprived the petitioner of a chance to be considered for gainful employment for earning his livelihood without following the procedure established by law, due process and without a speaking order. The petitioner moved the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1937 of 1999 which was disposed of by an order dated June 6, 2000 directing the respondents to consider his complaint and pass a speaking order within a certain time. The record shows that pursuant thereto the respondents passed an order dated January 25, 2002, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for being appointed for a suitable job after waiving the age bar. The petitioner carried this to the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1468 of 2002. It was allowed by the learned Tribunal by the Order No. 24 dated February 8, 2007 holding, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) It will be apparent that the order dated August 02, 2007 was a mandatory order which in fact held the petitioner entitled to appointment. The petitioner's name was never forwarded to any other recruiting authority by the concerned Employment Exchange because his name had been empanelled and continued to be so empanelled before it was arbitrarily cancelled. Therefore, it is safe to hold that the entitlement of the petitioner would date back to February 08, 2007 at the latest and to the date of institution of O.A. No. 1468 of 2002 at the earliest. We hold thus since the entitlement of the petitioner had to be considered from the date of his application to the learned Tribunal once the age bar was waived.