ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of appellant/writ petitioner against an order dated July 8, 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting his prayer to rescind/revoke the directions dated September 7, 2007 and September 27, 2007 issued by the respondent no. 1, the Official Trustee of West Bengal. By the said directions the respondent no. 1 terminated the service of the appellant as the durwan -cum -caretaker of Premises No. 2 Royd Street, Kolkata (hereinafter described as "the said premises") and directed the appellant to quit the said premises on the expiry of the month of October, 2007.
(2.) IN the year 1941, the said premises was transferred to the respondent no. 1, Official Trustee. According to the appellant, as per the communication dated October 14, 1977, the respondent no. 1 appointed him as a darwan -cumcaretaker of the said premises. The said communication dated October 14, 1977 expressly records that the appellant was appointed as a durwan -cum -caretaker in respect of the said premises, purely on temporary basis, with effect from July 01, 1977 and his service was terminable on one month's notice without assigning any reason whatsoever. The appellant was allowed by the respondent no. 1 to occupy one room of the said premises, as an incidence to his said service in respect of the said premises. From the date of his appointment and until October, 2007, the appellant never raised any complain about his service all along remaining temporary. By an order dated April 13, 1986 passed in a matter being Matter No. 609 of 1986 (William Michael Coria and Anr. Vs. the Official Trustees of West Bengal ) this Court permitted the respondent no. 1, to grant a long -term lease, for ninety nine years, in respect of the said premises to the respondent no. 2 with the right to construct a multi storied building thereat. Subsequently, the respondent no. 4 obtained assignment of the said lease. The respondent no. 4 obtained possession the said premises from the respondent no. 1 and constructed the new multi storied building at the said premises. Thus, the respondent no. 1 ceased to have any obligation for the security of the said premises, or to keep the appellant as a durwan of the said premises. The appellant, however, continued to receive the monthly salary from the office or the respondent no. 1 and remained in occupation of the said room of the said premises. The respondent no. 4 raised objections to the respondent no. 1 about the occupation of the appellant in respect of the said room. In the year 2000, the appellant filed a title suit, against the respondent no. 4, before the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta and obtained ad interim order of injunction. The said title suit was dismissed in August, 2012. The appellant contended that he remains to be a durwan of the said premises engaged by the respondent no. 1 and as such he is entitled to occupy the said room of the said premises.
(3.) BY a notice dated August 24, 2007, the respondent no. 1 requested the appellant to appear before him on September 7, 2007 along with all relevant papers and documents to substantiate his claim as a durwan -cum -caretaker of the said premises. On September 7, 2007 the appellant appeared before the respondent no. 1 and in support of his claim produced the said communication dated October 14, 1977. The representative of the respondent no. 4, lessee also attended the said hearing. After considering the documents produced by the appellant as also the facts of the case, the respondent no. 1 held that after the said lease of the said premises in favour of the respondent no. 4, his office has no reason to keep a durwan or caretaker of the said premises and the appointment by the appellant was purely on temporary basis terminable by one month's notice. Thus, the respondent no. 1 passed the said order dated September 7, 2007 terminating the temporary service of the appellant with the expiry of the month of October, 2007 and directed the appellant to quit and vacate the said premises by the end of October, 2007. The said order expressly records that the contents of the said order was explained to the appellant. By a communication dated September 7, 2007 the respondent no. 1 once again informed the appellant that his services as a durwan -cum -caretaker of the said premises stands dispensed with, his appointment as durwan -cum -caretaker do stand terminated on and from the expiry of the month of October, 2007 and he should vacate the said premises on the expiry month of October 7, 2007. The appellant received his monthly salary for the month of October, 2007 and from the month of November, 2007 the respondent no. 1 stopped payment of salary to the appellant. The appellant, however, did not vacate the said premises and in February, 2008 he filed the above writ petition. On February 8, 2008, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed ad interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the appellant's possession in the disputed property. After completion of all pleadings, the writ petition came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge. After considering all the records produced by the parties and the submissions made by the respective parties, the learned Single Judge rejected all the contentions of the appellant/writ petitioner that the order dated September 7, 2007 contains stigma against him, the said order was passed without granting appropriate opportunity of hearing to him, the respondent no. 1 had no jurisdiction to issue either the said order dated September 7, 2007 or the memorandum dated September 27, 2007. While rejecting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the impugned order of the respondent no. 1 is an order terminating the temporary service of the petitioner and the same does not contain any stigma. The learned Single Judge further held that the writ petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing and upheld the contention of the respondent no. 1 with the handing over possession and control of the said premises to the respondent no. 4, the service of the writ petitioner is no longer required. With regard to the issue of jurisdiction of the respondent no. 1 to pass the impugned order dated September 7, 2007 the learned Single Judge held that having not disputed or denied the authority of the respondent no. 1 towards his appointment, the petitioner cannot turn back and challenge the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 1 towards issuance of the order and the memorandum.;