(From previous issue) :
The High Court Division further observed that from the materials, it was found that 392 employees of the project were absorbed in the revenue set up after its completion; the writ-respondents received that service from the writ-petitions from about 7 (seven) years till 2003 (it would be February, 2003) after the end of the project in 1995, but the writ-petitioners were paid salaries upto 1998 and thereafter, they rendered services “till 2003 with the sky high expectation” that they will be absorbed in the revenue set up. The High Court Division concluded by observing that from annexure – ‘N’ and ‘O, it appeared that a clear understanding was given to the writ-petitioners and others that their services would be transferred to the revenue set up and then came to the finding that “it has clearly been emerged from the materials that there were some sorts of promise given on behalf of the public authority but the Ministry of Finance overlooking all those promises had most unjustly rejected the recommendation of the Ministry of Establishment as well as the Ministry of Agriculture to absorb 28 posts in the revenue set up and such decision of the Ministry of Finance appears to have been made arbitrarily and without any reason or rhyme and such arbitrary decision cannot be sustained in law.” In giving the above finding the High Court Division relied upon the observations made by this Division in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Md Jahangir Hossain and 65 others (supra).
12. Mr Rajik-al-Jalil, learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing for the writ-respondent-petitioners could not assail the facts as noticed by the High Court Division and the observations made by it with reference to any material on record.
Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the view taken by the High Court Division to the effect “we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners expectation of being absorbed in the service after satisfactory completion by 5 years service cannot but be said to be their legitimate expectation and in all fairness, they should be absorbed in their service” and in giving direction upon the writ-respondents to “include the petitioners in the Revenue set up of Cotton Development Board with continuity of service” within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the impugned judgment and order.
Therefore, no interference is called for by this Division with that portion of the direction given by the High Court Division in the impugned judgment and order (as quoted hereinbefore). But the direction given by the High Court Division so far as it relates to give “salary and fringe benefits” to the writ-petitioners is concerned that cannot be maintained altogether for the reason that admittedly, the writ-petitioners worked upto February, 2003, whereas the impugned judgment and order was passed on 5-1-2011 and if the direction of the High Court Division is given effect then they shall have to be paid salary and fringe benefits from March, 2003 till the pronouncement of the judgment in spite of their not being in service during that period and thereby they did not render any service to the Board. However, as the writ-petitioners rendered service to the Board till February, 2003 they are surely entitled to get the salary and fringe benefits up to February, 2003 from January, 1998 (admittedly the writ petitions were paid the salaries and fringe benefits upto December, 1997).
It may be stated that in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it was stated to the effect “That although the appointment of the petitioners was for the tenure of the project which expired on 30-6-1995 but they were allowed to continue in their services till February, 2003 and the respondents received their services without any fresh appointment as of other regular employees of the Cotton Development Board.” The writ-respondents did not deny the above quoted facts asserted in the writ petition and thus the claim of the writ-petitioners that the Board received their services upto February, 2003 is an admitted fact.
It further appears that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 5-1-2011 and no order was passed by this Division staying operation of the same and we believe that by this time, the writ-respondents have included the writ-petitioners in the revenue set up of the Board as per the direction given by the High Court Division.
This leave petition is disposed of with the above modification of the direction of the High Court Division in respect of the salary and fringe benefits to be paid to the writ-petitioners.
(Concluded)
The High Court Division further observed that from the materials, it was found that 392 employees of the project were absorbed in the revenue set up after its completion; the writ-respondents received that service from the writ-petitions from about 7 (seven) years till 2003 (it would be February, 2003) after the end of the project in 1995, but the writ-petitioners were paid salaries upto 1998 and thereafter, they rendered services “till 2003 with the sky high expectation” that they will be absorbed in the revenue set up. The High Court Division concluded by observing that from annexure – ‘N’ and ‘O, it appeared that a clear understanding was given to the writ-petitioners and others that their services would be transferred to the revenue set up and then came to the finding that “it has clearly been emerged from the materials that there were some sorts of promise given on behalf of the public authority but the Ministry of Finance overlooking all those promises had most unjustly rejected the recommendation of the Ministry of Establishment as well as the Ministry of Agriculture to absorb 28 posts in the revenue set up and such decision of the Ministry of Finance appears to have been made arbitrarily and without any reason or rhyme and such arbitrary decision cannot be sustained in law.” In giving the above finding the High Court Division relied upon the observations made by this Division in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Md Jahangir Hossain and 65 others (supra).
12. Mr Rajik-al-Jalil, learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing for the writ-respondent-petitioners could not assail the facts as noticed by the High Court Division and the observations made by it with reference to any material on record.
Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the view taken by the High Court Division to the effect “we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners expectation of being absorbed in the service after satisfactory completion by 5 years service cannot but be said to be their legitimate expectation and in all fairness, they should be absorbed in their service” and in giving direction upon the writ-respondents to “include the petitioners in the Revenue set up of Cotton Development Board with continuity of service” within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the impugned judgment and order.
Therefore, no interference is called for by this Division with that portion of the direction given by the High Court Division in the impugned judgment and order (as quoted hereinbefore). But the direction given by the High Court Division so far as it relates to give “salary and fringe benefits” to the writ-petitioners is concerned that cannot be maintained altogether for the reason that admittedly, the writ-petitioners worked upto February, 2003, whereas the impugned judgment and order was passed on 5-1-2011 and if the direction of the High Court Division is given effect then they shall have to be paid salary and fringe benefits from March, 2003 till the pronouncement of the judgment in spite of their not being in service during that period and thereby they did not render any service to the Board. However, as the writ-petitioners rendered service to the Board till February, 2003 they are surely entitled to get the salary and fringe benefits up to February, 2003 from January, 1998 (admittedly the writ petitions were paid the salaries and fringe benefits upto December, 1997).
It may be stated that in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it was stated to the effect “That although the appointment of the petitioners was for the tenure of the project which expired on 30-6-1995 but they were allowed to continue in their services till February, 2003 and the respondents received their services without any fresh appointment as of other regular employees of the Cotton Development Board.” The writ-respondents did not deny the above quoted facts asserted in the writ petition and thus the claim of the writ-petitioners that the Board received their services upto February, 2003 is an admitted fact.
It further appears that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 5-1-2011 and no order was passed by this Division staying operation of the same and we believe that by this time, the writ-respondents have included the writ-petitioners in the revenue set up of the Board as per the direction given by the High Court Division.
This leave petition is disposed of with the above modification of the direction of the High Court Division in respect of the salary and fringe benefits to be paid to the writ-petitioners.
(Concluded)
