South Bengal State Transport Corporation & Ors vs Uttam Saha & Ors

Biswanath Somadder, J

By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay.

The instant appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 11th October, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. 27217 (W) of 2016 (Uttam Saha & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with a direction upon the concerned authorities to take a suitable decision on writ petitioners' representation, giving a certain timeframe to comply.

This appeal has been preferred by the South Bengal State Transport Corporation, its Managing Director, its Chairman, its Chief Accounts Officer and its Divisional Manager.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants raises several issues, including inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching the writ Court. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, cause of action, if any, arose in the year 1993 and the writ petitioners have made a representation in the year 2016. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the writ petitioners were selected in various posts through the same selection process and joined their service in the year 1993 in the supervisory cadre without lodging any protest. As such, at this belated stage, they could not have approached the writ Court seeking a mandatory direction for the purpose of consideration of their representation.

For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out hereinbelow in its entirety: -

"The writ-petitioners are the diploma holders in Engineering employed with the South Bengal State Transport Corporation. They submit that the private respondents who possess the same qualification and entered into the employment of the said organization at the same time are now posted with a different nomenclature but are equal in all respects, to the writ-petitioners. The said persons are, however, getting higher scale of pay than that of the writ-petitioners. The writ-petitioners are seeking parity in pay along with those with the private respondents.

The writ-petitioners have submitted a representation dated September 26, 2016 that has not been disposed of by the authorities till date. Although an affidavit-in-opposition has been used to the writ-application, none appears for the respondents.

In those circumstances, the authorities may take a suitable decision on the writ-petitioner's representation in accordance with law and within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

With the above directions, the writ-petition being WP 27217 (W) of 2018 (sic. 2016) is disposed of. No order as to costs."

A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge took into consideration the fact that the writ petitioners had submitted a representation dated 26th September, 2016, which representation had not been disposed of by the authorities till the date of passing of the impugned judgment and order. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed the concerned authorities to take a suitable decision on the writ petitioners' representation within a certain timeframe from the date of communication of the impugned judgment and order.

A representation may be considered by a competent authority only if it is so provided under any statutory provision and the Court should not pass an order directing any authority to decide a representation for the simple reason that many a time unwarranted or time-barred claims are sought to be entertained before the concerned authority. In this context, one may take notice of the observation as contained in paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147 (Union of India & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal).

A plain reading of the impugned judgment and order does not reveal any statutory provision based on which the writ petitioners could have made a representation, that too, belatedly. The learned Single Judge ought to have taken this aspect into consideration before passing the impugned judgment and order, which is in the nature of a mandatory direction upon the concerned authority.

We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition, consequentially, stands dismissed.

Dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not cause any prejudice to the respondents/writ petitioners, in the event their representation dated 26th September, 2016, is considered by the concerned authority, strictly in accordance with law, on a future date.

The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly.