JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL Vs. TARAK NATH GANGULY
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
May 08,2002
JHARESWAR PRASAD PAUL
Appellant
VERSUS
TARAK NATH GANGULY
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
KALPANA DUDEJA VS. JAIDEEP KUMAR MISHRA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-27] [REFERRED TO]PREM SHANKAR VS. RAJEEV PANDEY, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/CITY MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
P SATYANARAYANA REDDY VS. M SARASWATHI [LAWS(APH)-2023-11-59] [REFERRED TO]
Pitambar Deo VS. Ashok Kumar Tripathy, IAS, Commissioner -cum- Secretary to Government, Schools and Mass Education [LAWS(ORI)-2003-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN VERMA VS. MANISHA NANDA [LAWS(HPH)-2014-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION) VS. K. REGHUNATHAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-2-7] [REFERRED TO II)]
PUJA VS. VIKAS NEGI [LAWS(HPH)-2023-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHASIS GIRI VS. SUBHASIS MITRA [LAWS(SC)-2023-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI R. PRASAD & ANR. VS. CAPTAIN D.S. GIARE & ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-820] [REFERRED TO]
D K ATTERY VS. KANWAL SINGH MEHRA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-148] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAPRABHABEN ARJUNBHAI PATEL VS. MAHESH KHADUBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-1016] [REFERRED TO]
ISHAN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. MUKUL SINGHAL PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-157] [REFERRED TO]
MANUBHAI KURJIBHAI MALAVIYA VS. AAYUSH OAK [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-351] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI RATHI VS. GAJENDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-147] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR VS. NITIN AGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2024-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
BHANGU RAM VS. SAVITA SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2021-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE, NEW HINDI SECONDARY SCHOOL, KHAJURBA-GAN VS. HIRALAL CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(GAU)-2011-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. AMAR DOGRA [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
JAYABRATA BHATTACHARJEE VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-269] [REFERRED TO]
V D KAVATKAR VS. FATIMA HUSENI RADHAPURWALA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. VISHAL SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-6-56] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SINGHAL VS. DINESH KUMAR TANDAN [LAWS(ALL)-2014-8-280] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAB NARAYAN BENERJEE VS. SRIJIT DUTTA GUPTA [LAWS(CAL)-2007-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION) PUBLIC OFFICE VS. K. REGHUNATHAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-2-149] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV RAM VS. JAGAN NATH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-12-225] [REFERRED TO]
MD. SARFARAZ ALAM VS. MD. MOFAZZULAR RAHMAN [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-135] [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L A SRBC NANDYAL VS. N VASUDEVA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2003-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT ARJANI VS. ROMA ARJANI [LAWS(DLH)-2004-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
RT REF T ARULDOSS BISHOP TAMIL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH TRANQUEBAR HOUSE TRICHY VS. D RAVINDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-184] [REFERRED TO]
AMITAV THAKUR VS. DUKHISHYAM HOTTA [LAWS(ORI)-2024-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
DR. (MRS.) RUPINDER KAUR NATT VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2009-8-227] [REFERRED TO]
ABBAS MOHIDEEN VS. VIJAY SINGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE NEW DELHI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-258] [REFERRED TO]
G.SUBRAMANIAN VS. K.PHANINDRA REDDY [LAWS(MAD)-2023-2-206] [REFERRED TO]
VASNATHA MEENA ENTERPRISES VS. BASKARAN DIRECTOR OF DRUGS CONTROL [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-324] [REFERRED TO]
N. VENKATA SRINIVASA RAO VS. CH. C. SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2023-2-185] [REFERRED TO]
MS. ASHWINI SATTARU, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, SECUNDERABAD VS. P. VENKAT REDDY, S/O LATE KANAKAL REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2017-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R.L.YADAV [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
MANSA RAM VS. SUDHIR KRISHNA SECY UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-320] [REFERRED TO]
SYLVANIA AND LAXMAN EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION VS. SHYAMA AGGARWAL AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-175] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN GUPTA VS. DR. D.K. SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-376] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND NARAIN MISRA VS. DILIP SINGH RANA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. VS. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-95] [REFERRED TO]
MRINAL SIRKAR VS. RADHANATH SIRKAR [LAWS(CAL)-2004-4-80] [REFERRED TO]
AMALENDU CHANDRA VS. PROF. RAJIV SHEKHAR [LAWS(ALL)-2022-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
AVISHEK RAJA & ORS. VS. SANJAY GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2017-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
V. SENTHUR VS. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS, SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. NAIN VS. SHATRUJEET KAPUR [LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-237] [REFERRED TO]
R MAHESWARI VS. P SENTHILKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR SHARMA VS. SHIV MOHAN DWIVEDI [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-409] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA PASRICHA VS. DEEPIKA CHAUHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
JAMNA DATWANI VS. JANAK DATWANI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
HARENDRA BHOWMIK, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIPURA APEX WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. SUBHAS SUTRADHAR, S/O BANAMALI SUTRADHAR [LAWS(GAU)-2011-2-76] [REFERRED TO]
DR. N.VENKATA SRINIVASA VS. PROF. CG. C. SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2023-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
V D KAVATKAR VS. FATIMA HUSENI RADHAPURWALA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-8-178] [REFERRED TO]
ACHINTYA DEB DASGUPTA VS. IQBAL SINGH BAINS [LAWS(MPH)-2020-8-346] [REFERRED TO]
KAPILA HINGORANI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2008-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
C/M AMAR GANDHI PUSTKALAYA BALIKA INTER COLLEGE THRU. MANAGER VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. SECONDARY EDU. & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV PANDEY VS. PREM SHANKAR [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-261] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ DHAR DUBEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-250] [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQ AHAMAD VS. JALIL AHMAD [LAWS(ALL)-2023-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. R. S. MEENA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-9-144] [REFERRED TO]
YASHODA SHARMA VS. P.K. SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAMATI DEVI VS. RAJIB BORA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
DHANANI SHOES LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2008-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
KANGARO INDUSTRIES VS. JAININDER JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
V. M. MANOHAR PRASAD VS. N. RATNAM RAJU [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-109] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA RAJE HOLKAR VS. ANIL KAK [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-192] [REFERRED TO]
S. TIRUPATHI RAO VS. M. LINGAMAIAH [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
SUBA SINGH VS. AVTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-238] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC VS. M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
HUKUM CHAND DESWAL VS. SATISH RAJ DESWAL [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
TELANGANA ELECTRICITY OC EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
ABHENDRA KUMAR JAIN VS. B K GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
DERBY SALES PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS. SANJAY MITRA, CHIEF SECY., LAND & LAND REFORMS DEPT. & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCIAL MEDICAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-271] [REFERRED TO]
ALEX PAUL MENON VS. VIJAY LAXMI SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-161] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. VS. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. PARIMAL RAI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-447] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J&K VS. MANJEET SINGH [LAWS(J&K)-2008-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
CYRUS INVESTMENTS PVT LTD AND ORS VS. TATA SONS LTD AND ORS [LAWS(NCLT)-2017-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
A.A. APHRAIM VS. RAJIV RANJAN [LAWS(KER)-2024-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
J&K PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD. VS. DHARAM PAL SHARMA [LAWS(J&K)-2021-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
B MOHAMAD SHIBLI VS. SRIPATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-119] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH VS. BHAL SINGH BISHNOI [LAWS(P&H)-2019-11-150] [REFERRED TO]
M.K. STHAPAK VS. PRASHANT MEHTA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-387] [REFERRED TO]
JHUGGI JHOPRI VIKAS SAMITI, NETAJI NAGAR VS. SURESH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-119] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA SONTI VS. SURYANARAYAN MURTY SONTI [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
NIZAMUDDIN VS. RAMZANI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-280] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU SREE ROBINSON (473 (CONT) 2014 VS. CHIRKUMARITHVA YADAV ACJ (JD) COURT NO. 35 LUCKNOW U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-588] [REFERRED]
JOGINDER PAL VS. AMIT KASHYAP [LAWS(HPH)-2022-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT ARJANI VS. ROMA ARJANI [LAWS(DLH)-2004-4-17] [REEFRED TO]
MR. RAJINDER KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. MR. PARESH BIHARILAL VYAS [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
S K GUPTA VS. O S MARAK AND OTHERS [LAWS(MEGH)-2016-9-30] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)In these appeals filed by special leave the appellants have challenged the judgment/order dated 11-11-1992 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in the contempt proceeding, Civil Rule No. 2197/(W)/88, holding inter alia, that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 29-2-1988 of the Court effectively and in appropriate manner.
(2.)The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the proceeding may be stated thus : The respondents, 27 in number, were holding posts of clerk-cum-cash collector in the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal. They filed writ petition No. CO. 8793(W) of 1984 raising a grievance that though they have been holding the posts since long and have been doing clerical work similar to those of lower division clerks in the department they have not been given the benefit provided under the Government Order No. 3868-F dated 31-3-1984. In the said Government Order it was ordered, inter alia, that members of the Lower Division Clerical cadre will be entitled to promotion to the Upper Division Clerical cadre on the ratio of 1 : 1 and the order was applicable to Lower Division Clerks/Assistants in all Government Departments and Directorates including the Directorate of Dairy Development. The further grievance of the writ petitioners was that they were denied the benefit of promotion and consequent financial benefits envisaged under the aforementioned Government order merely for the reason that designation of the posts held by them was clerk-cum-cash collector and not Lower Division Clerks/Assistant. It was the case of the petitioners that the duties discharged by them are similar to those of the Lower Division Assistants and in addition to such duties they also do the work of collection of cash. Therefore, there was no justification, to deny them the benefits of the aforementioned Government order. The petitioners sought the following reliefs in the writ petition.
a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why the incumbents in the post of Clerk-cum-Cash Collector including the petitioners under the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal should not be taken into account in the preparation of common seniority List amongst the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the said Directorate.
b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents and each one of them to act in accordance with law and to promote the Lower Division Clericals Cadre to the Upper Division Clerical Cadre in terms of the Government order dated 31-3-1984 being No. 3868-F in terms of the common seniority list prepared in accordance with law taking the petitioners into account.
c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why the posts of Clerk-cum-Cash Collectors should not be considered as belonging to the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal.
d) Rule Nisi be made absolute if the respondents fail to show adequate cause.
e) An order of injunction do issue restraining the respondents, particularly the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from giving effect or any further effect to the Government order dated 31-3-1984 being No. 3868-F issued by the Assistant Secretary, Department of Finance till a common seniority list in the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal is prepared taking the posts of Clerk-cum-Cash Collector as constituent of the said Cadre.
f) Direction be given upon the respondents to prepare the Common seniority and/or Gradation List in the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the Directorate of Dairy Development taking the posts of Clerks-cum-Cash Collectors as belong to the said cadre and thereafter to promote the Lower Division Clerical Cadre to the Upper Division Clerical Cadre at the ratio of 1 : 1 in terms of Government order dated 31-3-1984 being No. 3868-F.
g) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (e) and (f) above.
h) Costs of this application be paid by the respondents."
(3.)The gist of the case of the respondents was that the writ petitioners were not members of the Cadre of Lower Division Assistants; that they were holding ex-cadre posts; that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the writ petitioners were not similar to those performed by Lower Division Assistants, and therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits of promotion and consequential financial benefits as envisaged in the Government Order No. 3868-F dated 31-3-1984.
(2.)The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the proceeding may be stated thus : The respondents, 27 in number, were holding posts of clerk-cum-cash collector in the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal. They filed writ petition No. CO. 8793(W) of 1984 raising a grievance that though they have been holding the posts since long and have been doing clerical work similar to those of lower division clerks in the department they have not been given the benefit provided under the Government Order No. 3868-F dated 31-3-1984. In the said Government Order it was ordered, inter alia, that members of the Lower Division Clerical cadre will be entitled to promotion to the Upper Division Clerical cadre on the ratio of 1 : 1 and the order was applicable to Lower Division Clerks/Assistants in all Government Departments and Directorates including the Directorate of Dairy Development. The further grievance of the writ petitioners was that they were denied the benefit of promotion and consequent financial benefits envisaged under the aforementioned Government order merely for the reason that designation of the posts held by them was clerk-cum-cash collector and not Lower Division Clerks/Assistant. It was the case of the petitioners that the duties discharged by them are similar to those of the Lower Division Assistants and in addition to such duties they also do the work of collection of cash. Therefore, there was no justification, to deny them the benefits of the aforementioned Government order. The petitioners sought the following reliefs in the writ petition.
a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why the incumbents in the post of Clerk-cum-Cash Collector including the petitioners under the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal should not be taken into account in the preparation of common seniority List amongst the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the said Directorate.
b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents and each one of them to act in accordance with law and to promote the Lower Division Clericals Cadre to the Upper Division Clerical Cadre in terms of the Government order dated 31-3-1984 being No. 3868-F in terms of the common seniority list prepared in accordance with law taking the petitioners into account.
c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why the posts of Clerk-cum-Cash Collectors should not be considered as belonging to the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal.
d) Rule Nisi be made absolute if the respondents fail to show adequate cause.
e) An order of injunction do issue restraining the respondents, particularly the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from giving effect or any further effect to the Government order dated 31-3-1984 being No. 3868-F issued by the Assistant Secretary, Department of Finance till a common seniority list in the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the Directorate of Dairy Development, Government of West Bengal is prepared taking the posts of Clerk-cum-Cash Collector as constituent of the said Cadre.
f) Direction be given upon the respondents to prepare the Common seniority and/or Gradation List in the Lower Division Clerical Cadre under the Directorate of Dairy Development taking the posts of Clerks-cum-Cash Collectors as belong to the said cadre and thereafter to promote the Lower Division Clerical Cadre to the Upper Division Clerical Cadre at the ratio of 1 : 1 in terms of Government order dated 31-3-1984 being No. 3868-F.
g) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (e) and (f) above.
h) Costs of this application be paid by the respondents."
(3.)The gist of the case of the respondents was that the writ petitioners were not members of the Cadre of Lower Division Assistants; that they were holding ex-cadre posts; that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the writ petitioners were not similar to those performed by Lower Division Assistants, and therefore, they were not entitled to the benefits of promotion and consequential financial benefits as envisaged in the Government Order No. 3868-F dated 31-3-1984.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.