B.Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the respondents in a writ application filed by Kamal Kanta Singh, the sole respondent of the instant appeal and is directed against the order dated June 30, 1989 passed by a learned single Judge of this court allowing the writ application filed by the sole respondent thereby issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the present appellants to treat the sole respondent as in service all throughout as driver of the department concerned without break. The appellants herein were also directed to pay all balance of the emoluments of the respondent as a driver within 12 weeks from the date of communication of the said order including the annual increments which he would have been entitled to in the meantime.
(2.) The case put forward by the respondent herein in his writ application may be summarised thus :- (a) The respondent was appointed as a Chainman in the office of the respondent No.2 on December 30, 1968. (b) One Jodh Bahadur, the father of the respondent, was also an employee of the respondent No.2. The said Jodh Bahadur was working as a driver for about 30 years and ultimately retired on August 30, 1980. (c) During the last few years of his service, the father of the respondent was suffering from poor eye-sight. Since the respondent was holding a valid driving licence, the appellant No.2 asked the respondent to work as a driver to assist his father. Accordingly, the respondent was paid the salary of driver from November 1, 1978 to March 31, 1979 and June 1, 1979 to December 26, 1979. (d) After the retirement of his father the petitioner was appointed as a driver against the permanent vacancy with effect from September 1, 1980. (e) Since the respondent was not agreeable to obey illegal order of the appellant No.3 as regards the user of the concerned motor vehicle for the personal use of the appellant No.3's family members, the appellant No.3 became annoyed with the respondent. (f) On December 29, 1980 when the respondent went to draw the salary for the month of December, 1980, he found that his name was not included in the requisition in Part-I Salary Bill. (g) As the wife of the respondent became seriously ill, the respondent did not attend his office and had to go on leave from January 2, 1981 and was continuing as such till the presentation of the writ application. (h) On February 27, 1981, the respondent found a letter being hung on the door of his residence wherein the appellant No.2 made allegation against the respondent for holding unlawfully the keys of the office car and by the said letter the respondent was also asked to join in the substantive post of Chainman by referring to an earlier purported order dated November 29, 1980. (i) Thus, by the said writ application the respondent prayed for an order restraining the appellants and their servants from proceeding any further to give effect to the said purported order dated November 29, 1980 and February 24, 1981 which came to the notice of the respondent on February 27, 1981.
(3.) The said writ application was contested by the respondent No.1 viz. the State of West Bengal alone by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It may be mentioned here that in the said writ application the State of West Bengal was made respondent No.1, the First Land Acquisition Collector was made respondent No.2 and one Sri Ram Prosad Chakraborty, the Second Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta was made respondent No.3, who are all appellants before us.;