Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 6th January, 2004 has held that the Process Serverswere entitled to Scale No. 6 of 1981 with effect from the date of their joining. Aggrieved by this order the State has preferred this writ petition. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows: The Process Servers who were the applicants before the learned Tribunal prayed for the relief granted by the Tribunal on the following grounds: a) In paragraph 7.5 the contention is that the Process Servers working in different Courts of Law, Statutory Tribunals and in the office of Collector of different districts of West Bengal discharge the same duties and responsibilities undertaken by the Seal Bailiffs working in the City Civil Court and the Presidency Small Causes Court, if not more onerous duties. b) In paragraph 7.20 it is contended that by a memo dated 2nd December, 1992, a copy whereof is Annexure 'F to the application filed before the Tribunal, the Governor was pleased to treat the Process Servers, who are performing identical duties, at par with the Seal Bailiffs serving in the City Civil and Sessions Court and also agreed to pay them the scale payable to the Seal Bailiffs. c) In paragraph 7.25 of the application, filed before the Tribunal, the contention is. that the persons referred to in paragraph 7.22 of the application were declared to be eligible to get the scale of Seal Bailiffs under the memo dated 2nd December, 1992. d) Referring to a judgment dated 24th September, 1986 passed by S. R. Roy J., as His Lordship then was in CR No. 5139 (W) of 1981 it has been contended that the Process Servers working in the office of the executive are entitled to the scale payable to the Seal Bailiffs. The judgment and order dated 24th September, 1986 was not interfered with either by the Appellate Court or by the Apex Court. e) Lastly it is contended that omission on the part of the State to treat the Process Servers working in the office of the Collector, Malda at par with the Seal Bailiffs is an act of discrimination which is wrongful, illegal and unconstitutional.
(2.) Mr. Kar, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition submitted: a) that the CR No. 5139 (W) of 1981 was filed by the Process Servers working in the Civil and Revenue Courts. The applicants before the Tribunal working in the office of the executive cannot claim parity with the Seal Bailiffs; b) the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the issue was res judicata; c) in the subsequent reports of the Pay Commission the question was considered but the classification has been maintained. Considering the fact that new reports of the subsequent Pay Commission have come into force the order passed in CR No. 5139 (W) of 1981 can have no manner of application; d) the fact that some writ petitions subsequently filed were disposed of on the basis of the order passed in CR No. 5139 (W) of 1981 cannot denude the State from contesting the contention advanced by the applicants before the Tribunal.
(3.) Mr. Arup Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted: a) twenty-sevenpersons similarly circumstanced have been given the same benefit; b) CR No. 5139 (W) of 1981 was filed amongst others by the process servers working in the office of the Collector; c) this Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment and order passed in CR No. 5139 (W) of 1981; d) the Government has in principle agreed to extend the same benefit to the Process Servers by the memo dated 2nd December, 1992.;