Dhiren Bauri & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The short point, in controversy, is whether the writ petitioners are entitled to seek absorption in the regular establishment of a municipality within the

meaning of Article 243P (e) read with Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioners were casual workers; they submitted that

they were not in the muster-roll of the municipality, but were working on a daily basis without any break for at least 240 (two hundred forty) days in a

year and for a period of more than ten years. It is admitted that they were not engaged prior to December 31, 1991. They claimed the benefit of a

notification and sought absorption in the regular establishment of the municipality on that basis. That notification of January 22, 1997 pertained to

casual workers who are engaged till December 31, 1991. So on the face of that notification, these petitioners are not entitled to such benefit as they

have claimed. In an earlier round of litigation, a coordinate Bench had directed that the representation of the writ petitioners be considered and

disposed of by the concerned municipality. This order is dated December 16, 2010 passed in WP 24518 (W) of 2010 was complied with by a reasoned

order dated February 15, 2011. This is Annexure P-8 to the writ petition.

I have gone through the order and I find that there are reasons given. The reasons are plausible, not arbitrary and the said order appears to have been

passed after considering all the facts which were material at the relevant point of time. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said

reasoned order. However, there was a change in the circumstances which the writ petitioners say that they were not aware of when the writ petition

was instituted on June 22, 2011. The circumstances are as follows:

a) The welfare State, in its wisdom, issued a notification dated September 16, 2011 where it made some provisions to give the fruits of labour to

casual/daily employees;

b) The exact nature of the benefits and the terms and conditions shall appear from a copy of the memo which has been disclosed by the State

respondents at page 10 of the Affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Mr. Sagar Sinha on January 3, 2018;

c) The second event, which has happened, is that the Kulti Municipality has ceased to exist. Its successor entity the Assansol Municipal Corporation,

has been arrayed as a party respondent by means of addition by the writ petitioners pursuant to the leave granted by this Court on January 8, 2018. It

is represented today;

d) The writ petitioner no.4 has died in the meanwhile and his cause of action has also died with him;

e) The writ petitioners have joined several causes of action together, but have paid only one set of court fees; and

f) No representation has been made to the successor municipality/municipal corporation by the writ petitioners seeking the benefit under the

notification of September 16, 2011;

Accordingly, while not interfering with the order under challenge at Annexure P-8 to the writ petition so far as the admissibility of the benefits under

the circular dated January 22, 1997 is concerned, I dispose of the writ petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioners and each of them to make an

appropriate representation before the Assansol Municipal Corporation claiming benefits under the notification dated September 16, 2011 and such

other notification as they are advised are applicable except the notification dated January 22, 1997. The writ petitioners shall enclose all documents

that they rely upon in support of their claims.

If and when such an application/representation is made, the respondent Assansol Municipal Corporation shall make an enquiry to ascertain and verify

whether the writ petitioners and/or any of them meet the criteria contained in the notification under which such claim has been made and if the

respondent/municipal corporation finds that the writ petitioners or any of them are eligible and entitle to such benefit, then it shall pass a reasoned

order proposing to the appropriate authority that such benefits be granted to the writ petitioners or such of them who are found to be entitled. An

opportunity of being heard shall be given to a representative of the writ petitioners who may even be a legal practitioner. The refusal of the benefit in

the earlier case with which I have not interfered with, would not by itself, disentitle the writ petitioners to make the claim under the notification of

September 16, 2011.

I have however, not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the writ petitioners, as claimed by them under the said notification of 2011. The

respondent/municipal corporation shall be free to decide the matter in accordance with law entirely in its own way without being influenced by any of

the observations made in this order. The allegations contained in the affidavit-in-opposition are deemed not to be admitted by the writ petitioners. The

entire process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date Mr. Banerjee’s client make a representation. In case the

representation is refused or the claim is rejected, a reasoned order shall be given by the respondent municipal corporation and communicated to the

writ petitioners within seven days from passing of the order.

I fully expect and have confidence that Assansol Municipal Corporation shall not take any prejudicial step against the writ petitioners for having filed

the writ petition, like creating in break in their engagement merely to disentitle them. Of course, if the performance of the writ petitioners or any of

them is not satisfactory naturally this order shall not prevent the municipal corporation from taking appropriate steps. The final approval of any

decision taken by the municipal corporation shall be given by the appropriate authority mentioned in clause 14 of the notification dated September 16,

2011 as provided for in that paragraph pursuant to the proposal of the corporation for the grant of benefits to the petitioners.

With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The allegations contained in the writ

petition are not admitted by the Assansol Municipal Corporation. The present order shall be conditional on the writ petitioners putting in the requisite

number of sets of court fees within a period of seven days from date, in default this order shall stand recalled and the writ petition shall stand

dismissed.