AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None appears on behalf of the appellants, even at the time of second call.
Pursuant to the liberty granted to the State in terms of the order dated 6th March, 2017, a fresh report in the form of an affidavit is sought to be filed, which may be taken on record.
On 8th February, 2017, we had called for a report in the form of an affidavit from the concerned respondent wherein it was required to be specifically stated as to whether the memorandum dated 23rd April, 2010, issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, Audit Branch, would be applicable in respect of the appellants/writ petitioners.
In the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court today, the following statements have been made, inter alia, in paragraphs 9, 10, & 11:-
That on verification of available records submitted by the Block Development Officer, Karandhghi [sic; read Karandighi] Block, it is found that the Toll Collectors were engaged for Toll collection from Rasakhowa Hat and Dalkhola Hat on every Sunday, purely on temporary basis. It is obviously clear that these Toll Collectors were engaged for only Fifty Two (52) days in a calendar year.
It is further stated that as per Memorandum No.2966-F(P) dated 23.04.2010 of Finance Department of Government of West Bengal, the daily rated or contractual worker who have rendered service for at least 240 days in each year will be allowed the benefit of regularization for such engagement.
Xerox copy of the report of the District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur alongwith all annexures is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "A".
It is submitted that as these Toll Collectors were not engaged for more than Fifty Two (52) days in each year, so they were not considered by the Engagement Authority that is Executive Officer, Karandighi Panchayat Samiti for regularization as per Memorandum No.2966- F(P) dated 23.04.2010.
It is thus clear that the appellants/writ petitioners do not fall within the purview of the memorandum dated 23rd April, 2010. As such, we do not find any infirmity of reasoning in respect of the order dated 18th August, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP 25696 (W) of 2014.
The appeal and the application for stay, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed.