AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Therefore, although the petitioner held reported the obstruction faced by him on 10th March, 2017 by complaints dated 13th March, 2017 both
addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Habibpur Police Station and to the Block Development Officer (BDO), the Habibpur Development Block,
District: Nadia.
The petitioner was called for a hearing by the Respondent No.2/BDO and the Minutes of the Hearing annexed to the writ petition record that on the
10th of March, 2017 the petitioner was opposed, threatened and obstructed to enter the GP office by some unidentified persons. The note sheet as
disclosed to the petitioner through a Right to Information Act reply is signed on the 10th of April, 2017 by the BDO.
Mr. Lahiri, Learned State Counsel takes the plea that the complaint of the petitioner is vague and incapable of being acted upon by the police
authority. No culprits can be identified till date and since the petitioner did not join duties, the next man in the panel, one Ms. Luxmi Pal was appointed.
Having heard the parties and having taken a careful look at the materials placed, this Court is of the view that it is for the Pradhan, the BDO and
others being the local officials to have created a climate conducive enough for the petitioner to report and discharge his duties. The Pradhan, the BDO
cannot simply sinks their mouths like ostrishes in the stand and feign innocence at the fate of the petitioner. More so, when the petitioner claims to
have been turned back from the gates of the Panchayat office itself when he want to join.
Therefore, to the mind of this Court, the so called exercise initiated by the BDO/the Respondent No.2 to hear the petitioner is of mere academic
interest. No steps have been taken to be shown by the State Respondents that steps were taken beyond 10th March, 2017 by granting protection to
the petitioner to show his joining on the first date. However, Mr. Lahiri is granted the opportunity to present a Report on Affidavit of the Respondent
No.2/the BDO having regard to the above discussion.
Let an advance copy of the Report on Affidavit be served on Mr. Bhattacharya, who shall be entitled to respond by way of a Reply Affidavit on the
next date. This Court notices that the initial appointment was for a contractual period of one year. Accordingly, in the opinion of this Court, this Court
finds that in the event the first fact made out by Mr. Bhattacharya of obstruction is correct, the petitioner has not only not been allowed to join but also
could not complete full year of contractual service.
Therefore, having regard to the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya that the petitioner, if he would have been allowed to discharge duties, would have
earned an honorarium of Rs.8,500/- per month, treating his initial contract to be one year, the Respondent No.2/the BDO shall deposit a sum of
Rs.1,02,000/- (Rupees One Lac Two Thousand only) (Rs.8,500x12) from the funds of the Panchayat to be deposited with the Learned Registrar
General, High Court, Calcutta.
The Learned Registrar General, High Court shall invest the fund in a Short Term Fixed Deposit. Proof of the deposit as directed above be produced
on the next date. Let the matter next appear under the heading “Mentioned Matters†on the 24th of July, 2018. Registry shall communicate this
order to the Respondent No.2/BDO forthwith. Affidavit of Service filed in Court be retained with the record.