Md. Shafi vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents to disburse the regular salary in favour of the

petitioner, who is working in the post of Darwan (Group-D) in Milli Al-Ameen College (for Girls) ( in short, the said College).

Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was suspended from

the post of Darwan by an order dated 4th February, 2013 issued by the Secretary of the said College. Subsequent thereto, a charge sheet was filed to

which the petitioner duly replied. Thereafter by a resolution dated 13th June, 2016, the order of suspension and the charge sheet as well were

withdrawn. Such fact was intimated to the petitioner by a letter dated 20th June, 2016. In spite of withdrawal of the order of suspension and the

charge sheet on 13th June, 2016, the College authorities did not disburse regular salary in favour of the petitioner and he is being paid subsistence

allowance till date.

No one has appeared before this Court on behalf of the College authorities and no instruction is forthcoming as to why regular salary is not being paid

to the petitioner.

Mr. Mahata, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that certain documents were called for from the College authorities and

the same had not yet been supplied. In support of such contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to a memo dated 15th March, 2017 issued

by the respondent no. 2.

It appears that the said memo dated 15th March, 2017 was replied to by a letter dated 26th November, 2019 issued by the Acting Teacher-in-Charge

of the said College. Let the copy of the said memo dated 26th November, 2019, as produced, be kept on record.

Mr. Roy submits that along with the petitioner, three teachers were also suspended and charge sheets were issued. After withdrawal of the orders of

suspension and the charge sheets, the said teachers have been disbursed their regular salaries. However, a different yardstick has been applied in

respect of the petitioner and he had been denied his regular salary.

As the charge sheet and the suspension order have been withdrawn, there can be no bar towards disbursement of regular salary of the petitioner.

In view thereof, this Court directs the respondent no. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner as regards withholding of regular salary, upon

granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the College authorities and to take a decision towards disbursement of the regular salary of the

petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order and to communicate such decision to the petitioner within a

period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.

It is made clear that at the time of hearing before the respondent no. 2, the College authorities being the respondent nos. 4 to 6 shall produce all

relevant documents.

Needless to observe in the event the petitioner’s claim deserves acceptance, all necessary follow up steps shall be taken by all the respondents

forthwith.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

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

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all necessary

formalities.