Sanjit Shee v. State of West Bengal & Ors

documents relied upon by the writ petitioner.

#11. We, therefore, find that the petitioner9s claim in the O.A. is factually not sustainable. We, therefore, find petitioner9s reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) is misplaced having regard to the nature of his employment as a contingent Group 8D9 employee having assigned intermittent duties requirement.

#12. In the case of Dharam Singh (supra) the Apex Court took note of the relevant facts, being engagement of the appellants therein between 1989-1992. The fact that they were discharging ministerial and support functions during regular office hours. The Apex Court took note of Commission where they were engaged as ad- hoc employees resolved to create posts and 7 solicited sanction of such post from the State Government, which was reiterated from time to time. When the sanctioned post was not forthcoming the appellants therein had filed writ petition, wherein the High Court directed the Commission to send recommendation afresh and directed state government to take a fresh decision. The direction of the High Court dated 24.02.2002 took note of the long engagement of the appellant therein and directed the Commission to pay appellants minimum of the applicable pay scale.

#13. The State thereafter declined sanction citing a ban on creation of new posts and financial grounds. It is taking note such facts that the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) directed regularization of the appellants therein and for grant of other benefits.

#14. In the present case, the facts are at stark variance, as noted above. The engagement of the present writ petitioners was under a policy for meeting the contingency of work, arising intermediately, for which, the writ petitioners were being paid a monthly sum from the contingency fund. There is nothing 8 on record to show that the applicant/writ petitioners performed continuous throughout the year. In the present case we also find that there is no opinion of any authority, such as the commission in the case of Dharam Singh (supra), that creation of sanctioned posts was required for discharging the intermitent duties discharged by the writ petitioners herein. We find the facts arising for consideration in the present case to be distinguishable from the facts arising for consideration in the case of Dharam Singh (supra).

#15. The petitioner9s case, therefore, does not derive any sustenance from decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra). We find no infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal.

#16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)