TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THIS writ application had been preferred challenging inter alia the impugned denial of the respondents to implement the memorandum dated 21st July, 1983 issued by the respondent no.5 and the denial of the respondent no.3 take necessary steps in terms of the memorandum dated 29th February, 2000 issued by the respondent no.5.
(2.) THE facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, upon participating and emerging to be successful in a selection process for appointment to the post of Cycle Peon, was approved and appointed to the said post at Vivekananda Pathagar/Library (hereinafter referred to as the said Library) and was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.2,22,388/ - vide memorandum dated 21st June, 1983 issued by the respondent no.5. Upon receipt of the said memorandum, the petitioner reported for duty on 1st August, 1983 and submitted his joining report but he was not allowed to perform the duty of Cycle Peon. Subsequent thereto, the said respondent no.5 issued a memorandum dated 30th March, 1994 to the respondent no.6 stating inter alia that the petitioner was appointed, approved and posted as Cycle Peon of the said Library with effect from 1st August, 1983 by a memorandum dated 21st July, 1983 and that in terms of the Government order No.55 -Edn (SE) dated 9th February, 1980, the District Advisory Council of Social Education, Jalpaiguri was the competent authority in respect of the appointment, transfer, pay scale and allowances etc. in Government sponsored Library but the said memorandum dated 21st July, 1983 was not implemented by the then District Social Education Officer, Jalpaiguri and that as a result thereof, the petitioner was suffering financial hardship since July, 1983. The said respondent no.5 also forwarded necessary papers and documents and requested the respondent no.6 to take necessary action. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent nos.5 and 6 on 12th December, 1996 stating inter alia that on 29th March, 1994 he came to know about the memorandum dated 21st July, 1983 and accordingly by the said representation the petitioner prayed for review of the memorandum dated 21st July, 1983 so that he can be appointed to the vacant post of Cycle Peon in the said Library. Thereafter, the petitioner was forwarded a memorandum dated 29th February, 2000 by which the respondent no.5 had, inter alia, stated that the petitioner was appointed in the concerned post but he could not accept such claim due to absence of specific approval from the departmental authority. By the said memorandum, the said respondent no.5 requested the respondent no.3 to take necessary action in view of the memorandum dated 21st July, 1983. Thereafter the respondents, however, maintained a deceptive silence and did not take any steps in spite of repeated reminders and as such a notice of demand was issued by the petitioner through his learned advocate on 19th May, 2009.
(3.) IN the backdrop of the said facts Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute as regards the fact that the petitioner competed in a selection process and upon emerging to be successful in the same he was duly approved, appointed and posted as Cycle Peon in the said Library and was granted the regular scale of pay by the memorandum dated 21st July, 1983 issued by the respondent no.5 and that the said memorandum dated 21st July, 1983 had not been cancelled till date. According to Mr. Gupta the claim of the petitioner is still alive and that he can be accommodated in an existing vacancy pertaining to the post of Cycle Peon which presently has been re -designated as Junior Library Attendant.;