Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) These two writ applications are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1999 passed by the Hon'ble Justice N.K. Batabyal and Hon'ble Mr. K.M. Mondal, Member (A) in O.A. No. 790 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal was pleased to refuse the prayer of the writ applicant of the case W.P.S.T. No. 324 of 2001 to give effect to promotion to the post of Head Clerk to the writ applicant with effect from 2.8.1983. But the writ applicant was given higher remuneration for the period from 1.7.1990 to 19.1.1996. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the writ applicant has filed the present application W.P.S.T. No. 324 of 2001.
(2.) On the other hand, the State of West Bengal and others have filed the other writ application W.P.S.T. No. 244 of 2001 praying for setting aside the impugned order. As both the writ applications arose out of the common judgment and order, the two writ applications have been heard analogously.
(3.) The facts of the case of the W.P.S.T. No. 324 of 2001 are that the writ applicant, Sri Mrinal Kanti Chattopadhyay, was appointed by the Respondent Authorities in the post of Upper Division Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 330-550/- on "2.8.1980. Thereafter the writ applicant was confirmed to the said post with effect from 2.8.1983. While he was working as an Upper Division Assistant on regular basis in the Administrative Training Institute, Salt lake, Kolkata (henceforth shall be called A.T.1., Kolkata), the respondent authorities appointed one, Sri Subhas Chandra Misra, in the post of Accountant in the A.T.I., Kolkata. The post of Head Clerk in the A.T.I., Kolkata was the feeder post by promotion from the posts of Upper Division Assistant and Accountant. Thereafter the Respondent Authorities allowed Sri Misra to work as Head Clerk by an office order dated 29.12.1981 in the scale of pay of Rs. 425-1050/- with higher initial start at Rs. 670/-. Thereafter by the order dated 25.6.1990, the Director. A.T.L. Kolkata reverted Sri Misra to the post of Accountant and also repatriated him to his parent department and he asked Sri Misra to deliver charge of the post of Head Clerk to the writ applicant. Accordingly the writ applicant took over the charge of the post of Head Clerk in the afternoon of 30.6.1990 from Sri Misra. But. thereafter unfortunately Sri Misra was not allowed to join his parent office as there was no vacant post in his parent office, that is. Orientation and Study Centre, Kalyani, District Nadia. Then. he (Sri Misra) filed a writ application before the Hon'ble High Court. Calcutta and got an interim order to join the A.T.1., Kolkata. The Respondent Authorities directed the writ applicant to hand over the charge of the post of Head Clerk to Sri Misra according to the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. Then the wilt applicant filed another writ application before the Honable High Court, Calcutta. The two writ applications were finally disposed by a common judgment dated 21.9.1992 allowing the writ application of Sri Misra and c ;missing the writ application of Sri Chattopadhyay. Thereafter the Stat; Government and the writ applicant preferred appeals and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta passed a common judgment dated 16.5. i995 setting aside the order of the learned Trial Judge and directing to decide all the questions afresh by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. Accordingly, the concerned authorities reverted Sri Misra to his original post of Accountant in the parent office and the writ applicant was appointed to the post of Head Clerk with effect from 19.1.1996 in the scale of pay of Rs. 1390-2970/- with higher initial start at Rs. 2055/-. The writ applicant was not satisfied with the order. His claim was that he was entitled to be pronoted to the said post with effect from 2.8.1983 instead of 19.1.1996. The Director, A.T.I., Kolkata admitted, in fact, b order dated 19.1.1996 that the writ applicant would have been eligible for the post of I lead Clerk with effect from 2.8.1983. Then he made a representation to the Director, A.T.1., Kolkata and the Government of West Bengal in vain. Ultimately, he filed the application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. 1985 which was allowed in part by the learned Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the impugned order he has preferred the present writ application against the impugned order.;