OM PRAKASH BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court writ appeal is directed against an order dated May 4, 2018, passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. CAN 10038 of 2018 is an application for stay. While hearing the application for stay, we have had the occasion to examine the order under appeal on merits. With the consent of the parties, we propose to dispose of the appeal here and now dispensing with all formalities. A previous writ petition of the appellant was disposed of on January 9, 2012 by a learned Judge of this Court directing the Director of Local Bodies to dispose of the matter regarding the filling up of vacant posts of clerk in Baidyabati Municipality. In compliance with such order, the Director arranged for a hearing which was duly attended by the appellant and the chairman of the municipality. The appellant had relied on Memoranda dated March 13, 1996, August 3, 1979 and August 28, 1980 in support of his claim for regularization in service as a clerk of the municipality.

(2.) Considering a circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal dated December 2, 2009, conveying the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court dated August 24, 2009 in W.P.S.T. 483 of 2000 ( Rabindra Nath Ghosh & ors. v. The State of West Bengal & ors .), that no effect or further effect to the instructions of the Labour Department, as communicated vide Memoranda dated August 3, 1979, August 28, 1980 and March 13, 1996 for regularisation/absorption of casual employees or ad hoc employees should be given, the Director was of the opinion that the claim for regularisation raised by the appellant was untenable. He also observed that prior to the appellant's engagement in the municipality, due process was not followed and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ( Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. v. Uma Devi (3), casual/temporary/ad hoc appointees are not entitled to regularisation. The reasoned order dated March 7, 2012 was communicated to the appellant immediately thereafter.

(3.) For nearly five years, the appellant was in deep slumber. Towards the later part of 2017, he woke up from his slumber and assailed the order dated March 7, 2012. The learned Judge, in seisin of the writ petition, was of the opinion that the explanation offered by the appellant for belated approach to the writ court did not deserve acceptance. However, instead of dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay, the learned Judge examined the order of the Director dated March 7, 2012 on merits and found that the appellant had no case to run. It was recorded in the order that nothing was placed before the Court to substantiate that the impugned order suffers from any perversity or is a non-speaking one. In such circumstances, the writ petition stood dismissed.