Dismissed¶17

Santanu Ghosh v. Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Mar 2025WP.CT/210/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Santanu Ghosh v. Union of India; W.P.C.T. 210 of 2012; decided 11.03.2025; writ petition dismissed; seniority fixation dispute; Inter-apprentice Mechanical (Electrical) selection 2000-2001; eighteen-month training aborted after twelve months due to son's critical illness; training completed 04.07.2003; regular posting 06.08.2003; Central Administrative Tribunal Kolkata Bench O.A. 747 of 2008 dismissed 23.03.2012; IREM para 303(a); seniority from date of appointment versus retrospective seniority; pay fixation; service jurisprudence; Junior Engineer-II; promotional post benefits.

What did the court decide?

No infirmity was found in the Tribunal's consideration capable of occasioning a failure of justice; the Tribunal's order in O.A. 747 of 2008 (Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, passed 23rd March, 2012) requires no interference.

Santanu Ghosh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

11.03.2025 (D/L-6) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)

¶2

W.P.C.T. 210 of 2012

¶3

Santanu Ghosh Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Amal Kumar Banerjee

¶5

...for the Petitioner

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

The petitioner while working as a Junior Engineer-II

¶8

appeared for selection to the post of Inter-apprentice, Mechanical (Electrical). Selection process was conducted in between September, to December, 2000 and result thereof was declared on 15^th January, 2001 declaring him successful. Thereafter he was deputed for the training vide order dated 8^th February, 2001. It is not in dispute that the training was of eighteen months period. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was compelled due to the critical illness of his son to abort the training after twelve months. His training was thus incomplete, and he thereafter completed the training much later that is on 4^th July, 2003. Thereafter he was posted on a regular basis vide order dated 6^th August, 2003. For the purpose of grant of benefits of the promotional post for which he had completed the training the authorities have considered the date on which he has joined the promoted post that is on 6^th August, 2003.

¶9

¶10

The petitioner on the other hand submits that he was compelled due to reasons beyond control to abandon the training midway after twelve months. It is under such circumstances that he approached the Tribunal for grant of benefits with effect from 2001. The Tribunal has considered the petitioner’s claim and dismissed the Original Application seeking the relief of fixing his seniority with effect from 11^th February, 2001 that is the date on which others who had enrolled in the training programme with him, instead of 12^th August, 2003.

¶11

The consideration of the Tribunal is apparent from paragraph 10 of the order passed by the Tribunal which reads as follows:

¶12

“10. On in depth analysis of afore-mentioned paras of IREM we are of the considered view that para 303 (a) would squarely be attracted in present case. It is not in dispute that the applicant was nominated for 18 months training, but he did not complete said training in the scheduled time. Instead of 18 months, he took 29 months period to complete it. As notice hereinabove, he was on leave for 170 days, and was nominated for 2^nd and 3^rd session of training from 24.03.2003 to 20.06.2003, the result of which had been declared on 4.07.2003 and immediately thereafter posted on regular basis vide order dated 6.08.2003. Thus his date of appointment had been taken into consideration while determining his seniority. Unless a person joins a post concerned, his pay cannot be fixed and consequently seniority cannot be determined. Granting seniority prior to the date of appointment as well as fixation of pay in retrospective manner, as prayed for, would certainly be against the normal rules of service jurisprudence. One is entitled to seniority as well as pay fixation etc. from the date of appointment and not prior to. No rule or law has been pointed out by the applicant in support of contention raised.”

¶13

We do not find any infirmity in the consideration which can be said to have occasioned any failure of

¶14

¶15

justice or that it is in any way liable to the set aside on any grounds whatsoever.

¶16

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in O.A. 747 of 2008 passed on 23^rd March, 2012 requires no interference.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶19

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Santanu Ghosh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santanu Ghosh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Krishna Halder Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashis Kumar Bera and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nadera Bibi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shailabala Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dn 16 and 16/1 Bus Syndicate Vs Subrata Karmakar and Ors.

Barasat Uluberia Bus Owners Welfare Association and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.