Disposed¶30

Guruswamy v. the Union of India and Others

Calcutta HC9 Feb 2024WPA/1083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of long-serving Samagra Shiksha Abhiyaan workers; disposal in terms of Division Bench order dated 7th February, 2024 with identical prayer; liberty to make fresh representation to Competent Authority; three-week timeline for disposal of representations; liberty to seek framing of job protection scheme; maintainability of writ petitions kept open; Port Blair Circuit Bench; WPA 2023; Union of India respondents.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representations before the Competent Authority for regularisation of their services in the posts in Samagra Shiksha Abhiyaan, and liberty to pray for framing of a scheme for job protection; the Competent Authority to dispose of such representations within three weeks of their being sent; maintainability issue kept open. ¶30

Guruswamy Vs the Union of India and Others — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners' case for regularization in the posts against which they have been working for a considerable number of years. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench dated 7th February, 2024, since they involve the same issue and relief.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Liberty given to the petitioners to make fresh representations before the Competent Authority for regularisation of their services in the posts in Samagra Shiksha Abhiyaan.

¶30

Key takeaways

Liberty also given to the petitioners to pray for framing of a scheme for job protection.ratio¶30
The Competent Authority is to dispose of any representations made by the petitioners within three weeks from the date the representations are sent to it.ratio¶31
The issue of maintainability of the petitioners approaching the High Court was kept open to be considered at an appropriate stage.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Port Blair Circuit Bench) disposed of four writ petitions (WPA 1083, 1104, 1105 and 1106 of 2023) by petitioners claiming to have been engaged in Samagra Shiksha Abhiyaan for the last 17 years and seeking consideration for regularisation. Since the petitions involved the same issue and relief as a matter in which a Division Bench of the same Court had, by order dated 7th February, 2024, granted liberty to make a fresh representation, the petitions were disposed of in terms of that order: liberty was given to the petitioners to make fresh representations before the Competent Authority for regularisation of their services and to pray for framing of a scheme for job protection; the Competent Authority is to dispose of any such representations within three weeks of their being sent. The maintainability objection raised on behalf of the respondents was kept open to be considered at an appropriate stage.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

¶3

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WPA/1083/2023

Guruswamy

Vs.

The Union of India and others

With

WPA/1104/2023

Rachna Thakur

Vs.

The Union of India and others

With

WPA/1105/2023

Mangaiyarkarasi

Vs.

The Union of India and others

With

WPA/1106/2023

CH. Hema Shankar Rao

Vs.

The Union of India and others

¶24

Ms. Anjili Nag … for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi … for the Administration

¶25

February 9, 2024 [SR] Item Nos.4,5,6&7

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners seek a direction on the respondents to consider the petitioners’ case for regularization in the post against which the petitioners have been working for a considerable number of years. Counsel places an order passed by a Division Bench in this Court dated 7^th February, 2024

¶27

¶28

which had an identical prayer including the issue of regularisation of the petitioners in their respective posts. After considering the case put forwarded by the parties, it appears that the Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the Competent Authority for regularisation of their posts in Samagra Shiksha Abhiyaan where the petitioners claimed to have engaged for the last 17 years.

¶29

Since counsel submits that these writ petitions involve the same issue and relief, the writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench.

¶30

WPA/1083/2023, WPA/1104/2023, WPA/1105/2023 and 1106/2023 are accordingly disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to make fresh representations before the Competent Authority for regularisation of their services in the posts in Samagra Shiksha Abhiyaan where the petitioners have been engaged for a substantial number of years. The petitioners are also given liberty to pray for framing of a scheme for job protection of the petitioners.

¶31

The Competent Authority shall dispose of the representations, if made, by the petitioners, within a period of three weeks from the date on which the representations are sent to the Competent Authority.

¶32

As submitted on behalf of the respondents, the issue of maintainability of the petitioners’ approaching the High Court, may be kept open to be considered at an appropriate stage. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.

Guruswamy v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guruswamy v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Vidya Kumari Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

V. K. M. Mohammed Miskin Vs the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Ors.

Dharam Raj Vs the Tehsildar

Nagar Palika Shramik Sangh Vs the Port Blair Municipal Council and Others

Ch Hema Shankar Rao Vs the Union of India and Others

M/S Manickam Enterprisesm/S Manickam Enterprises Vs the Adhyaksha and Ors.