AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Lodh, J
Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents-State.
By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:
“(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of the, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for directing the respondents, to transmit the records, lying with them, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioners;
(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for mandating/directing them, to forthwith grant the benefit of regularization of the services of the petitioners, and thereupon, grant of regular pay scale, benefit of increment fixation, alongwith arrears thereof, from the respective dates of their completion of five years;
(iii) Call for the records appertaining to this petition;
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule Absolute in terms of i. to ii. above ;
(v) Costs of and incidental to this writ proceedings;
(vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper;”
Issue notice calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a rule should not be issued as prayed for; and/or as to why such further order or other orders should not be passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.
Notice is made returnable within 6(six) weeks.
Since Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents nos.1 to 3, no formal notice is called for on behalf of those respondents.
The petitioners are to take steps for causing service of notice upon respondents nos.4 and 5 within a period of 7 (seven) days by registered post with A/D.
List the matter on 04.03.2024.