Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) PROMOTION of the petitioner to the post of superintendent in the Calcutta Tramways Company (1978) Limited is the subject of dispute in this writ petition. The petitioner had joined the said company as a peon in the year 1979 and thereafter selected for the post of clerk which, it is pleaded in the petition, is a promotional post. As pleaded, the petitioner has been serving in the post of clerk since 2nd February, 1982. The controversy in this matter is over his next promotion, to the post of Superintendent. The petitioner had once earlier approached this Court with a writ petition, registered as W.P. No. 1788 of 2008, with a complaint that some employees, who were junior to him, had been promoted to the post of Superintendent in violation of the terms of a memorandum bearing no. 10620/F, dated 19th December, 2000. The said memorandum contains the promotional policy of the company. There was an understanding between the contesting parties in connection with the dispute during the pendency of that writ petition and a compromise petition, being G.A. No. 1602 of 2011 was filed in W.P. No. 1788 of 2008. On the basis of such compromise, the writ petition was disposed of by an Hon'ble Single Judge by an order passed on 13th June 2013 to the following effect, on consent of the parties; - After hearing the parties to the Writ Application and on consideration of the materials on record, the Respondent No. 4 is directed to consider the grievances of the Writ Petitioner supported by documents annexed to the Writ Application and the Supplementary Affidavit in connection thereto and to take a reasoned decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Writ Petitioner within three weeks from the date of communication of this order positively. However, it is made clear that this Order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. Since no Affidavit -in -Opposition has been filed by the Respondents, the allegations made in the Writ Application are not admitted. The Writ Petition is disposed of without any Order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertaking. Thereafter, the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and upon hearing the petitioner, an order was passed by the Managing Director of the company (respondent no. 4) on 22nd June, 2011. It was specified in the said order: - The points to be reckoned are that the candidature of Shri Suvra Kumar Dey was not considered at all for the lapses of office though he had very much applied and that he was deprived and that his juniors were made to rise above him. In the personal opinion of the undersigned also Shri Suvra Kumar Dey is by no means inferior to any of the employees promoted to the post of Superintendent -B and Superintendent -A in November 2006 and November 2007 respectively. This lapse of not considering his legitimate case needs to be rectified though this cannot be equated with other normal cases of pay -protection as the circumstances in this particular case is apparently abnormal. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has also kindly observed - However, it is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. On that basis of above facts, the present writ petition as per solemn direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is disposed of with the following order - (a) That Shri Suvra Kumar Dey will be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Superintendent -B with effect from 01.11.2006 and notional benefit to be awarded to him for this. (b) That Shri Suvra Kumar Dey will be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Superintendent -A with effect from 01.11.2007 and notional benefit to be awarded to him for this. (c) The actual effect of the benefit of promotion (now to the post of Superintendent -A) will however be allowed to Shri Suvra Kumar Dey, Superintendent -A with effect from 01.07.2011.
(2.) THE petitioner however felt that his actual grievance was not considered properly and on 23rd June 2011 wrote to the respondent no. 4: - This is for your kind information that I have received your order under reference and having gone through the same I understood that my actual prayer as made in W.P. No. 1788 of 2008 has not been considered properly. I, therefore, request you to kindly keep in abeyance your order under reference and I shall further move before the Hon'ble High Court for redressal in this regard, as, there is no chairman in CTC presently. This letter is submitted without any prejudice. On receiving the said communication, the Managing Director of the company by an order passed on 24th June, 2011, recalled the entire order by which the petitioner was granted promotion. In this order it was stipulated: - On the basis of prayer submitted by Shri Suvra Kumar Dey, Law Clerk dated 23.06.2011 and received by this office on 24.06.2011, this Office Order No. MD/OR/1375 dated 22.06.2011 is hereby cancelled.
(3.) THE petitioner approached this Court with a second writ petition, being W.P. No. 712 of 2011 (Suvra Kumar Dey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) questioning the validity of the said order passed on 24th June, 2011. On 26th July, 2011, the second writ petition was disposed of by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court with the following observations and directions: - Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that by the order dated June 22, 2011 the respondent no. 4 accepted the claim of the petitioner and extended some benefits in his favour. No reason is assigned by the respondent no. 4 for canceling the above order by virtue of the impugned order. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. At the same time, I find that the petitioner did not assign any reason for his dissatisfaction with regard to the order dated June 22, 2011. In view of the above, the impugned order dated June 24, 2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 is quashed and set aside. Leave is granted to the petitioner to file a representation afresh before the respondent no. 4 stating reasons for his dissatisfaction with regard to the order dated June 22, 2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 within a period of two weeks from date. In the event such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 is directed to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation thereof. Since no affidavit -in -opposition is filed by the respondents, the allegations raised against them in the writ application are to be treated as denied by them. I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of this case and all points are kept open. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs.;