Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) This writ application by fourteen applicants is directed against the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioners and in not reinstating them. The writ petitioner Nos. 4, 11 and 13 were appointed as daily rated peons and other writ petitioners were appointed as daily rated clerks between September, 1976 and November 1976 by the District Judge, 24 Parganas and were posted in the various subordinate courts within 24 Parganas. On 7th October 1977, an order was issued by the Assistant Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal, terminating the services of 35 persons including the writ petitioners who had been performing clerical duties or duties of peon as the case may be. The said order of termination became effective from 10th October 1077.
(2.) The petitioners made a representation to the Judicial Minister on 3rd November 1977 and requested him to withdraw the notice of termination of the services of the petitioners the petitioners after their appointment in 1976 worked for more than 280 days. On 21st November 1977, the petitioners made presentation to the District Judge, 24 Parganas and requested him to withdraw the retrenchment notice and reinstate them. By a letter dated 9th February 1978, the Deputy Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal requested the District Judge, 24 Parganas to send the names and particulars of the daily rated retrenched workers to the Surplus Pool of the Finance Department. The petitioners received ex-gratia payment of Rs. 100/- each in terms of Memo no 1766 -J dated 9.2.1978 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Judicial Department to the District Judge, 24-Parganas. Thereafter on 16th February, 1978, the Deputy Secretary, Judicial Department in his Memo 2127-J communicated to the District Judge, 24-Parganas that the letter dated 9.2.1978 asking for the particulars of the daily rated retrenched workers need not be given effect to. Thereafter on 26th November 1978, the petitioners made a representation to the Judicial Minister, West Bengal Similar representations were also made by the petitioners to the Chief Minister, West Bengal. On 18th March 1980 further representations were made by the writ petitioners to the Chief Minister, West Bengal. The petitioners did not receive any favourable reply to their representations. On 12th September 1980 and 28th September 1982 the petitioners made representations to the Joint Secretary, Labour Department. On 22nd September 1982, the petitioners made representation to the District Judge and on 13th October, 1982, the petitioners made further representation for their absorption or reinstatement, but without any success. On 22nd November, 1982 the petitioners made a representation to the Judicial Minister, Government of West Bengal. In the said representation it was submitted by the petitioners that in the Directorate of Irrigation & Waterways the perms where rendered services over 280 days were made regular employees under the Labour Department vide Memo, dated 17.10.1977 and as such the petitioners who also worked more than 280 days as the daily rated clerks or peons as the case may be should have been made regular and they should not have been retrenched. Further representations were made by the petitioners on 18th December 1982 to the Judicial Minister drawing his attention that the writ petitioners were starving as they were unemployed since 1977. It is alleged that the Judicial Minister assured that the cases of the wit petitioners would be placed before the Cabinet, so that they can be reinstated. On 15th March 1983, the Cabinet meeting was held and tho question of reinstatement of the petitioners was placed before the Cabinet under File No. JIE 142/77. It was alleged that the Cabinet asked the concerned department to answer three points, viz-a-viz(a) whether their appointments were correct and usual (b) whether 56 persons out of 128 persons were absorbed in regular post as usual and (c) date of termination and on what ground they, were terminated
(3.) It appears that the Joint Secretary, Labour Department, answered tho questions (a) and (b) in the affirmative Strangely enough, the Assistant Secretary, Labour Department stated in reply to question (c) that the Labour Department cannot agree with the proposal of reinstatement of daily rated workers. It is alleged that the writ petitioners came to know that the Assistant Secretary made the aforesaid comment without answering the point under (c) above, although specifically directed by the Cabinet. The writ petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3 met the said Assistant Secretary and requested him to reconsider his note Since the petitioners grievances have not been redressed by the authorities concerned the petitioners moved this Court on 4th October 1983 G.N. Ray, J issued Rule nisi and an interim order was passed to the effect that if any appointment is made on the basis of the requisition made by the District Judge, such appointment will be made on an ad hoc basis and will abide by the result of the Rule.;