MANICK CHANDRA SARDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were appointed in different capacity on different dates on fix consolidated pay under the respondents in the Sandeshkhali-I Development Block. The petitioner No.1, a Schedule Tribe, was appointed night-guard in 1980 at a consolidated pay 4 Rs. 250/-per month; the petitioner No. 2 was appointed an instructor in 1980 at a consolidated pay of Rs. 350/- per month and the petitioner No.3 was appointed as a demonstrator at a consolidated pay of Rs. 300/- per month. There is no break in services of any of the petitioners since 22nd April, 1981 and on this count they claim to have acquired the status of permanent employees in accordance with the Memorandum No. 6059-F dated 25th June, 1979 issued by the Finance Department (Audit Branch), Government of West Bengal. It is their further case that they rendered services till the month of June 1985 when suddenly the petitioner No.2 by Memo dated 9th July, 1985 was asked to hand over the charge of the Training-cum-Production Centre at Nazat immediately to the E.O. (I) of the Block on the allegation that the said petitioner was not available at the Centre from 12th June, 1985. It is the case of the petitioners that they attended the office till 12th July, 1985 by putting signatures in the Attendance Register. It was further stated that by another Memo dated 9th July, 1985 to the petitioner No.2 was informed that the Seventh Session of the T.C.P.C. would commence from 1st August, 1985 and if he was willing to work from 1st August, 1985 he would give his consent by 17th July, 1985. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that they are rendering services in their respective post since 22nd April, 1981 without any break and their services cannot be terminated or they cannot be removed by virtue of the notification dated 25th June, 1979. It is alleged that the only intention of the Block Development Officer, Sandeshkhali-I, is to put a break of services so that the petitioner could not get advantage of permanent status which is against the very principle of equity and natural justice. The Memo dated 9th July, 1989 is alleged to be a motivatived malafide and colourable exercise of power and the petitioners prayed for quashing the same.

(2.) The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 defended the case by filing an Affidavit-in-Opposition. It is stated by them that the Training-cum-Production Centre at Nazat is designed to impart training to the unemployed tribal youth for self-employment and it is not a Production Centre. The scheme is of purely temporary nature and the night-guard, instructor and administrator were given ad hoc appointment on the basis of consolidated honoraria. There were six sessions of the training, the first session was started from 20th March, 1980 to 19th September, 1986 the second from 1st October, 1980 to 31st March, 1981, the third from 1st, June, 1981 to 31st May, 1982, the fourth from 1st June, 1982 to 31st May, 1983, the fifth from 1st June, 1983 to 31st May, 1984 and the sixth from 1st June, 1984 to 11th June, 1985. The seventh session which was to commence on 12th June, 1985 could not start due to insufficient number of trainees. On 9th July, 1985 a decision was taken to start the seventh session from 1st August, 1985 and anticipating sufficient number of participants in the training the Memo dated 9th July, 1985 was issued to Sanat Kumar Pal but till date the commencement of the seventh session could not take place and it is closed. It is further stated that after the closer of the Centre from 12th June, 1985 the petitioner did not, in fact, attend office nor handed over the charge of the Centre and the relevant papers and file including Attendance Register in spite of the receipt of the Memo No.875 dated 9th July, 1985.

(3.) In the Affidavit-in-Reply the petitioners have brought to the notice of the Court two more Notifications, one dated 3rd August, 1979 and another dated 20th August, 1980 both issued by the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal, and pointed out two certain clauses of those Notifications in support of the contention's. Apart from the above, other facts in the Affidavit are virtually reiteration of the statement already made in the writ application.