SATYA BRATA SHOME Vs. WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
LAWS(CAL)-1996-1-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on January 17,1996

SATYA BRATA SHOME Appellant
VERSUS
WEST BENGAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.B.Slobs. J. - (1.)-This appeal was originally filed by three persons who were the writ petitioners before the learned Trial Court. During the pendency of this appeal the appellants Nos.1 and 3 were reverted to their parent department and thus Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing on the behalf of the appellant did not press this appeal on behalf of the said appellants before this Court. We are concerned with the case of the appellant No.2 alone.
(2.)The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
(3.)The appellant No.2, Madhusudan Das at the relevant time was an employee of the State of West Bengal. Upon coming into the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (A Government of West Bengal Undertaking) the respondent No. l herein, several employees were appointed on deputation. The appellant No. 2 was one of them. He has been placed by his parent department at the hands of the respondent No. l and joined the post on 29.2.1980. The respondent No.l sought for objection from the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal, Panchayats & Community Development (Community Development) Department for his promotion to the post of Assistant and Junior Officers. In reply to the said letter the State granted no objection to his promotion subject to the following conditions; if the incumbents concerned are permanently absorbed in the Haldia Petrochemicals under the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, (2) in the alternative the promotion may be given to the deputationists concerned on their giving an undertaking in writing that they will not claim the benefit of such promotion at the time of their reversion to this Department after completion of the normal period of deputation by letter dated 23rd December, 1986. It is not disputed that the State of West Bengal issued two circulars dated 12.10.79 and 18.2.82 as contained in annexures Z-1 and Z-2 to the writ application whereby and whereunder it was laid down that the normal period of deputation shall be 3 years and can be extended for another period of one year in exceptional circumstances. Despite the said circulars being in existence and despite the fact that an undertaking was not taken from the appellant in terms of the aforementioned letter dated 23rd December, 1986 as contained in annexure 'J' to the writ application the appellant No. 2 was promoted to the higher post. It is relevant to mention here that he has been granted second promotion as late as on 12. 1. 1996 to the post of Senior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1500 - 55 - 1655 65-2250-80-3210-100-3410/ which has taken effect from 1.1.1996. It is however relevant to mention here that as far back as on 23.2. 83 the respondent No. 1 expressed its unequivocal stand to observe the appellant No. 2 permanently as they had no other experienced clerical hands, his service was very much indispensable in the interest of the project. By another letter dated 16th May, 1984 the respondent No.l intimated the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal that a new Government Company is in the process of being formed to implement the project. From the said letter it appears that the appellant No. 2's parent department has consented to the respondent No. 1's proposal for their absorption after a separate Company to implement the project was formed. It was stated that the present status is that it will still require some time before the Company is registered and it is only thereafter that they shall absorb him in public interest permanently. As despite the said fact the petitioners were not absorbed permanently they filed a writ application before this Court which was marked as C. O. No. 16119 (W) of 1986. The matter was heard by Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J (as His Lordship then was) and by ajudgment and order dated 30th November, 1987 the said learned Judge dismissed the writ application. The learned Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent categorically stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that in view of communication went on between the Corporation and the parent department the proposal had not reached any finality mid so no right has been accrued to the petitioners on the basis of the said proposal, dismissed the writ application.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.