Dismissed¶22

Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Sri Upendra Singh and Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Jul 2024WP.CT/189/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Post Master General v. Upendra Singh; WPCT 189 of 2024 (23.07.2024); postal authorities' challenge to Tribunal order of 17.11.2023 in OA 2072/2021 quashing memoranda of 04.01.2021 and 12.01.2021 denied part time contingent paid staff status — dismissed; irregular-engagement and recruitment-ban objections discounted in view of ~26 years' undisputed continuous service, safeguards from earlier litigation (orders of 23.09.2015, 07.04.2016 and 29.05.2023 disposing OAs 0808-0811/2016) and petitioners' laches; Tribunal's refusal of discretion upheld; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' contention that the respondents' initial engagement was irregular was rightly discounted by the learned Tribunal in consideration of the uninterrupted service rendered by the respondents for more than two decades. ¶21

Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs Sri Upendra Singh and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Tribunal acted with an infirmity warranting this Court's interference in quashing the memoranda dated 4 January 2021 and 12 January 2021 — whereby the original applicants were declared ineligible to be treated as part time contingent paid staff on the ground of engagement made without prior approval of the competent authority during a complete ban on recruitment of casual labourers — without returning findings on the petitioners' objections. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

In view of the safeguards provided in the earlier rounds of litigation, and as the lapse lay with the petitioners themselves, the respondents could not be made to suffer.

¶21

Key takeaways

The learned Tribunal rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners, and this Court found no error in that decision warranting its interference.ratio¶21
It was indisputable that the respondents were engaged as part time contingent paid staff and had discharged continuous duty for a long period of 26 years, a fact not disputed by the petitioners.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPCT 189 of 2024, decided 23.07.2024) by the Chief Post Master General and other postal authorities against the learned Tribunal's order dated 17.11.2023 in OA 2072 of 2021, which had quashed and set aside the memoranda dated 04.01.2021 and 12.01.2021 issued by respondent no.2 treating the applicants (led by Upendra Singh) as ineligible to continue as part time contingent paid staff on the plea that their initial engagement was made without prior approval amid a complete ban on casual labourer recruitment. The Court recorded the applicants' undisputed continuous service of some 26 years and the safeguards obtained in earlier rounds (the 23.09.2015 designation/pay-reduction order assailed before the Tribunal; speaking order of 07.04.2016 keeping that decision in abeyance pending review of engagement documents; disposal of OAs 0808-0811/2016 on 29.05.2023 directing restoration of pre-memo pay), and held that for the authorities' own laches the respondents could not be made to suffer; the Tribunal's refusal of discretion in the petitioners' favour was free from error. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs. Bench: Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Tapabrata Chakraborty, JJ.

23.07.2024

rpan/ 08

WPCT 189 of 2024

Chief Post Master General & Others

¶5

– Versus – Shri Upendra Singh & Others

¶6

Mr. Sahasrungshu Bhattacharjee, Mr. Sukanta Ghosh

¶7

… for the Petitioners/UoI.

¶8

Mr. Ujjal Ray, Mr. Arpa Chakraborty … for the Respondents.

¶9

The present writ petition has been preferred by the postal authorities challenging an order dated 17^th November, 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (hereinafter referred to as OA), being OA 2072 of 2021. By the said order the learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the memoranda dated 4^th January, 2021 and 12^th January, 2021 issued by the respondent no.2.

¶10

Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents were engaged as part time contingent paid staff without prior approval of the competent authority. The period, during which the respondents were engaged, there was a complete ban on recruitment of casual laborers and as such in the letter dated 4^th January, 2021 it was rightly observed that the original applicants/respondents

¶11

¶12

herein cannot be treated as part time contingent paid staff.

¶13

According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, when the initial engagement was in derogation to the statutory guidelines, the learned Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the decision of the authorities, as contained in the memo dated 4^th January, 2021. Such arguments, as advanced, were glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

¶14

Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the respondents herein denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee and submits that the respondents are discharging their services as part time contingent paid staff for a continuous period of more than two decades. Such fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. By an order dated 23^rd September, 2015 the designation of the petitioners was changed and their pay was sought to be reduced illegally. The said order was assailed before the learned Tribunal and pursuant to the direction passed in the same, a speaking order was issued on 7^th April, 2016 observing inter alia that the documents as regards engagement of the part time contingent paid staff needs to be reviewed and till such decision is taken, the decision dated 23^rd September, 2015 shall be kept in abeyance. As no final order was

¶15

¶16

passed thereafter, the respondents again approached the learned Tribunal by preferring original applications (being Nos. 0808-0811 of 2016) which were disposed of by an order dated 29^th May, 2023 observing inter alia that since no final decision has been taken, the authorities shall restore the previous pay prior to issuance of memo dated 23^rd September, 2015. Subsequent thereto, the memoranda impugned in the original application were issued without considering the entire sequence of facts and without disclosing appropriate reasons. In view thereof, the learned Tribunal rightly interfered with the memoranda dated 4^th January, 2021 and 12^th January, 2021 issued by the respondent no.2.

¶17

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶18

Indisputably, the respondents were engaged as part time contingent paid staff and the fact that they are discharging continuous for a long period of 26 years had not been disputed by the petitioners. Abruptly thereafter such engagement was questioned on a purported ground that the initial engagement was irregular.

¶19

The argument of the petitioners that the respondents were engaged without prior approval of the competent authority and that such engagement was

¶20

¶21

irregular was rightly discounted by the learned Tribunal in consideration of the uninterrupted service rendered by the respondents for more than two decades and in view of the safeguards provided in the earlier rounds of litigation. For the laches on the part of the petitioners, the respondents cannot be made to suffer and as such the learned Tribunal rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners and we do not find any error in such decision warranting interference of this Court.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition, being WPCT 189 of 2024 is dismissed.

¶23

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶24

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶25

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 17 November 2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 2072 of 2021, by which the Tribunal quashed and set aside the memoranda dated 4 January 2021 and 12 January 2021 issued by respondent no.2.¶9
the learned Tribunal · 2023-11-17
Prior proceeding
The respondents (original applicants) were engaged as part time contingent paid staff and have discharged their services continuously for more than two decades, a fact not disputed by the petitioners.¶14
Prior proceeding
By an order dated 23 September 2015 the designation of the respondents (labelled 'petitioners' in counsel's account) was changed and their pay was sought to be reduced, which counsel described as illegal.¶14
Prior proceeding
That 2015 order was assailed before the learned Tribunal and, pursuant to the Tribunal's direction, a speaking order was issued on 7 April 2016.¶14
Prior proceeding
The speaking order of 7 April 2016 observed, inter alia, that the documents as regards the engagement of the part time contingent paid staff needed to be reviewed.¶14
Prior proceeding
Per the same speaking order, until that review decision was taken the decision dated 23 September 2015 was to be kept in abeyance.¶14
Prior proceeding
As no final order was passed thereafter, the respondents again approached the learned Tribunal by preferring original applications Nos. 0808-0811 of 2016.¶16
Prior proceeding
Those original applications were disposed of by a Tribunal order dated 29 May 2023.¶16
Prior proceeding
That disposal order observed, inter alia, that since no final decision had been taken the authorities should restore the previous pay, i.e. the pay prior to issuance of the memo dated 23 September 2015.¶16
Prior proceeding
Subsequently the memoranda impugned in the OA — dated 4 January 2021 and 12 January 2021, issued by respondent no.2 — were issued without considering the entire sequence of facts and without disclosing appropriate reasons.¶16
Prior proceeding
By its order dated 17 November 2023 in OA 2072 of 2021 the learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the memoranda dated 4 January 2021 and 12 January 2021 issued by respondent no.2 — the decision challenged in this writ petition.¶9

Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Sri Upendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Sri Upendra Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dibyendu Mondal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalna Buiders and Fhardware Private Limited and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ranjit Pal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bandana Ghosh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mukunda Behari Biswas Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jitendra Shekhar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.