Calcutta High Court: In an appeal challenging the Single Bench’s interim order restraining the State from implementing any termination orders against the writ petitioners until the disposal of the writ petitions, a division bench comprising of T.S. Sivagnanam, CJ., and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J., held that the Single Bench has appropriately protected the interests of both parties, pending the final outcome of the writ petitions.
In the instant matter, the petitioners (respondent in present appeal), who were engaged as Cook/Cookmate/Guarding Staff on daily wages since 2014, faced potential termination as the Government plans to call for tenders to appoint an agency for such staff. Although the State suggested that the petitioners could apply under the tender process and potentially avoid termination, an order proposing termination had already been passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Development), Paschim Medinipur on 06-12-2023. The Single Bench, in a batch of writ petitions, vide an interim order dated 22-12-2023, restrained the appellant-State from implementing any termination orders against the petitioners until the disposal of the writ petitions. The Single Bench further mandated that the contractual arrangement under which the petitioners are currently employed shall be deemed to continue, subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the impugned interim order, the appellant preferred the present appeal challenging the same. The main issue in hand is whether the interim order passed by the Single Bench adequately protects the interests of both parties, and whether the appellant’s challenge to the order warrants interference by the higher court.
The Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, declined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Single Bench. The Court opined that the interim order effectively balanced the interests of both parties, particularly given the long-standing engagement of the petitioners and the imminent threat of termination. Additionally, the issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions was kept open for further consideration. The Court dismissed the appeal and the connected application and affirmed the interim order issued by the Single Bench.
[State of W.B. v. Asit Baran Hembram, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2804, order dated 19-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Rajnil Mukherjee, Ms. Debolina Sarkar and Ms. Satabdi Dey, Counsel for the Respondent/Writ petitioner
