DISTRICT: DARJEELING
BEFORE
THE WEST BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BIKASH BHABAN,
Application
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Details
of the application:
1. Particulars of the applicant: -
|
(i) Name of the Applicant |
Dhruba Jung Tewari
|
|
(ii) Name of Father |
Late Dal Bahadur Tewari |
|
(iii) Designation and office in
which employed |
Lecturer in the |
|
(iv) Office Address |
|
|
(v) Address of service of all notices |
Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate, Bar Association, Room No. 15, high Court, |
|
2. Particulars of the
Respondents |
|
|
(i) Name and/or designation of
the respondents |
1) State of West Bengal, Service through the Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of West Bengal (Technical Education), Bikash Bhawan, 10th
Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700 091, District North 24-Parganas; |
|
|
2) The Deputy Secretary, Department of Technical Education and
Training, Bikash Bhawan, 10th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700
091, District North 24-Parganas; |
|
|
3) The Director
of Technical Education and Training, Department
of Technical Education and Training, Bikash Bhawan, 10th Floor,
Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700 091, District North 24-Parganas; |
|
|
4) The Joint Secretary to the
Government of West Bengal, Department of Technical Education and Training,
Bikash Bhawan, 10th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700 091,
District North 24-Parganas; |
|
|
5) The Principal, |
|
(ii) Designation and particulars of office |
As stated in item 2 (i) |
|
(iii) Office address of the
respondents |
As stated in item 2 (i) |
|
(iv) Address of service of all
notices |
Upon the
offices of the Respondents |
3.
Particulars of the Order
against which application is made.
|
(i) Order No.
|
Memo No. 323-TET/1C-20T/2011 |
|
(ii) Date
|
29th January, 2013 |
|
(iii) Passed by |
Respondent No. 3 |
|
(iv) Subject in brief |
|
The applicant was appointed as a
Lecturer on in Civil Engineering of Government Polytechnic on a purely
temporary basis on 6th October, 1994 under the rewspondent no. 1,
which was extended from time to time and by way of a subsequent Order dated 15th
December, 2009, his service was confirmed with effect from 1st
January, 2004 along with some other candidates in the respondent no. 5
college. The applicant was accorded
approval to a vacant regular post of lecturer on 20th February, 2002
with effect from 1st January, 2001.
Some candidates who were junior to the applicant were confirmed
instantly within 1 year of joining service, while the applicant’s
regularisation was kept in abeyance for 7 year and extended from time to time
for reasons best known to the respondent authorities. The applicant sent several representations to
the respondent authorities for antecedent effect of his service benefit with
effect from 2001 and due to non-consideration of his representations, he was
compelled to move This Hon’ble Tribunal, being O. A. No. 1213 of 2011 and on
contested hearing, The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the
application filed by the applicant directing the respondent authorities to
consider the grievances of the petitioner and treat the application as a
representation and dispose of the same within a period of 4 months from the
date of communication of The Order after giving opportunity of hearing to the
applicant and pass a reasoned Order accordingly. That the matter was heard by the respondent
no. 3 on 3rd January, 2013 and was pleased to pass an Order on 29th
January, 2013 and was pleased to reject the prayer of the applicant without
assigning any cogent reason. Challenging
The impugned Order dated 29th January, 2013, the applicant has moved
This Hon’ble Tribunal for redressal of his grievances.
4.
Jurisdiction of The
Tribunal:
The
applicant declares that the subject-matter of the inaction on part of the
respondent authorities against which the applicant wants redressal is within
the jurisdiction of The Tribunal.
5.
Limitation:
The
applicant further declares that the application is within the limitation
prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
6. Facts
of the case:
The
facts of the case are given below: -
a)
the applicant is a citizen of
b)
that the
applicant states he was appointed on 6th October, 1994 as lecturer
in Civil Engineering of Government Polytechnic on a purely temporary basis by
virtue of an Order dated 27th September, 1994 vide vide Memo No. 678-TET(Poly) under the Government of West
4A – 10/94
A Xerox
copy of the appointment letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
“A” to the instant application.
c)
that the
applicant states that his initial appointment of 1994 was extended subsequently
vide Orders dated 20th
February, 1995, 10th July, 1995, 8th February, 1996, 21st
June, 1996, 25th February, 1997, 8th June, 1998, 20th
May, 1999 and finally on 20th February, 2002;
Xerox copies of the subsequent extended Orders are annexed herewith and
collectively marked as Annexure `B` to the instant
petition.
d)
that the
applicant states that Your applicant was designated as Senior Lecturer and he
was to act as Officer-in-Charge of the Dargeeling Polytechnic, Kurseong vide Order dated 18th June,
2003 vide Memo No. 656-TET
(Poly)/4A-7/2000 with effect from 2nd June, 2003.
A Xerox copy of said appointment letter, whereby he was appointed as
Officer-in-Charge of Darjeeling Polytechnic vide
Memo No. 656-TET (Poly)/4A-7/2000 dated 18th June, 2003 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure ‘C’ to this
application.
e)
that the applicant states that on
the basis of The Order issued vide Memo
No. 811-TETT(Poly)/16C-06/09 dated 15th September, 2009, which was
issued in pursuance of Finance Department Memo No. 6060-F dated 25th
June, 1979, it was stated that the applicant joined his service on 1st
January, 2001 and his date of confirmation of his service is with effect from 1st
January, 2004;
A Xerox copy of the said Order dated 15th September, 2009 vide Memo No. 811-TETT(Poly)/16C-06/09
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure “D” to this
petition.
f)
that the applicant states that he
was flabbergasted to receive such type of Order as his first appointment was
way back in 1994 and he was curious how his 7 years of service to the
respondent authorities has gone down the drain;
g)
that Your applicant states that the
persons on the same fooring and similarly placed circumstances with that of
Your applicant, who joined on temporary ad
hoc basis even after the applicant and junior to him in service have been
regularised and confirmed instantly without any delay within one year while the
applicant’s regularisation was kept in abeyance for about 7 years and extended
from time to time at the sweet will of the respondent authorities;
h)
that Your applicant submits that Your
applicant had brought the issue time and again to the knowledge of the
authority but the respondent authorities kept the prayers in abeyance for
indefinite period without sympathetically considering the prayer of the
applicant for proper placement in the group of seniority and service benefits
for his length of service since 1994, the initial appointment since it
culminated into regular appointment and confirmation. Had there been no culmination into regular
appointment and confirmation, then the prayer for consideration, then the
prayer for consideration would not be solicited as a natural consequence;
i)
that the applicant states that he
made several representations before the respondent authorities for redressal of
his just and legitimate grievances for getting the desired relief and as the
respondent authorities chose neither to take any action nor giving any reply to
the applicant’s prayer, the applicant had no other option but to approach This
Hon’ble Tribunal due to non-consideration of the applicant’s prayer, being O.
A. No. 1213 of 2011;
Your applicant craves leave to produce the copy of the application being O. A.
No. 1213 of 2011 at the time of hearing, if required.
j)
that the matter was taken up for
hearing, by Sri S. K. Chakrabarti, The Hon’ble Member, West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal on 26th July, 2012;
k)
that on contested hearing, The
Hon’ble Sri S. K. Chakrabarti was pleased to dispose of the application by
directing the respondent, particularly the respondent no. 3 to consider the
grievances of the applicant regarding seniority as made out in the instant
application, which may be treated as a representation along with all enclosures
and t dispose of the same within a period of 4 months from the date of
communication of This Order after giving opportunity of hearing to the
applicant or his representative and pass a reasoned Order accordingly and the
decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant within following 2
weeks.
A Xerox copy of The Order dated 26th July, 2012 passed by Sri S. K.
Chakrabarti, The Hon’ble Member, West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O. A.
No. 1312 of 2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure `E`.
l)
that Your applicant states that in
pursuance of The Order passed by The Hon’ble Tribunal, Your applicant duly communicated
The Order to the respondent no. 3, which was received by the respondent no. 3
on 17th October, 2012.
A Xerox copy of the communication letter of The Order of This Hon’ble Tribunal
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure ‘F’.
m)
That Your applicant states that the
respondent no. 3 duly communicated a letter to the applicant, a copy of which
was sent to the Assistant Director of Technical Education and Training, West
Bengal and the respondent no. 5 on 1st December, 2012 vide Memo No. 2900/1(3)-tet/1C-20T/2011,
whereby it was stated that pursuant to The Solemn Order dated 26th
July, 2012 passed by This Hon’ble Tribunal, hearing of the applicant has been
fixed at 11.30 hrs. on 3rd January, 2013 in the office chamber of
the respondent no. 3;
A Xerox copy of the said letter 1st
December, 2012 vide Memo No.
2900/1(3)-tet/1C-20T/2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
“G” to the instant application.
n)
that the applicant states that he
duly attended the hearing on the stipulated dated, i.e., 3rd January, 2013;
o)
that the applicant states that on
contested hearing, the respondent no. 3 was pleased to reject the prayer of the
application, with a vexatious reason stating inter alia that on scrutinising all the office records of the
Department of Technical Education and Training, West Bengal, it is observed
that no ad-hoc period of service of lecturers (who had been absorbed from
ad-hoc service in terms of the above mentioned G. O.) were treated as regular
service by the Technical Education and Training Department as there is no such
Rules/Orders of the government for treating ad hoc service as regular service;
p)
that the applicant states that the
instant Order was passed in consonance with Rule 4 of West Bengal Services
(Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 but the applicant submits that the
Rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such the
same ought to be declared ultra vires as
per the law laid down by The Hon’ble Apex Court;
q)
that the applicant states that challenging
The Order vide Memo No. 323-TET/1C-20T/2011 dated 29th
January, 2013, the applicant has approached the doorstep of This Hon’ble
Tribunal, whereby the respondent no. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner
for not giving his desired benefit since the date of joining his service in
1994, but the same was given with effect from 2001.
7. Reliefs sought:
In
view of the facts mentioned in Paragraph 6 above, the applicant prays for the
following reliefs:
(a)
a Direction upon the concerned
respondents to take into consideration the applicant’s prayer for appropriate
service benefit with effect from the year 6th October, 1994, i.e. date of first appointment;
(b)
a Direction upon the respondent
authorities to give all retrospective benefits to the applicant;
(c)
a Direction that Proviso Clause of
Rule 4 of the
(d)
a Direction that The Order vide Memo No. 323-TET/1C-20T/2011 dated 29th
January, 2013 be set aside;
(e)
a direction upon the concerned
respondents to transfer and transmit the entire records of the case before This
Learned Tribunal.
G R O U N D S F O R R E L I E F
(i)
For that the respondent authorities
acted illegally in not conforming to the principles of Natural Justice;
(ii)
For that in view of the settled
legal position laid down by The Hon’ble Apex Court that the applicant ought to
be given retrospective benefit from 6th October, 1994, i.e., the date of first appointment of
service;
(iii)
For that the Proviso Clause of Rule
4 of the
(iv)
For that impugned vide Memo No. 323-TET/1C-20T/2011 dated 29th
January, 2013 is not tenable in law and liable to be set aside.
(v)
For that the inaction on part of the
respondent authorities is tainted due to lack of fairness, good faith bias and
is against the safe-guards provided by the statute;
(vi)
For that the grisly attitude on part
of the respondent authorities is capricious and without any rational principle
or guideline;
(vii) For that The Learned Tribunal has power to interfere in the instant
case.
(viii) For that the applicant has been a victim of executive fiat.
8.
Interim Order, if prayed for:
Pending final decision of the
application, the applicant seeks issues of the following Interim Order: -
a Direction upon the concerned
respondents to give the applicant appropriate service benefit with
retrospective effect from the year 6th October, 1994, i.e. date of first appointment.
9. Details of the remedies exhausted:
The applicant declares that he has
availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant Service Rules.
10. Matter not previously filed or pending with
any Court.
The applicant further declares that
the matter regarding which this application has been made is not presented
before any Court of Law or any other authority or has not been rejected by any
Court of Law of other authority.
11. Details of Index:
An index in duplicate containing the details of the
documents to be relied upon is enclosed and given in details in the cover page
of the application.
12. List
of Enclosures
|
Xerox
copy of the appointment letter |
Annexure “A” |
|
Xerox
copies of the subsequent extended Orders |
Annexure `B` |
|
Xerox copy of appointment letter, whereby he was appointed as
Officer-in-Charge of |
Annexure ‘C’ |
|
Xerox copy of the Order dated 15th
September, 2009 vide Memo No.
811-TETT(Poly)/16C-06/09 |
Annexure `D` |
|
Xerox copy of The Order dated 26th
July, 2012 passed by Sri S. K. Chakrabarti, The Hon’ble Member, West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 1312 of 2011 |
Annexure ‘E’ |
|
Xerox copy of the communication
letter of The Order of This Hon’ble Tribunal |
Annexure “F” |
|
A Xerox copy of the letter dated 1st
December, 2012 vide Memo No.
2900/1(3)-TET/1C-20T/2011 |
Annexure `G` |
V E R I
F I C A T I O N
I, Sri Dhruba Jung Tewari, son of
Late Dal Bahadur Tewari, age about 53 years, working as Lecturer in the
Prepared
in my office Signature of the applicant
and
signed before me Identified and attested by
me
at my
Chamber
Advocate Advocate
Date:
Place:
To
The
Registrar,
Bikash
Bhaban,
Kolkata
– 700 091
DISTRICT:
BEFORE THE WEST BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BIKASH BHABAN,
An Application Under Section
19 Of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
O. A. No. of 2013
B E T W E E N
Dhruba Jung
Tewari … Applicant
a n d
The State Of
…… respondents
Ashok Kumar Singh,
Advocate,
Bar Association, Room No. 15
High Court,
Mobile No. 98368 29666
98830
70666
No comments:
Post a Comment