State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kaberi Khastagir & Ors

2. Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 herein claim to have been appointed in the Integrated Child Development Scheme Project (hereinafter referred to as `ICDS'). The said Scheme was introduced by the Government of India through the Department of Human Resources 2 Development for integrated delivery of certain services to pre-school children, pregnant and lactating women. The object of the Scheme was to improve the health and nutritional status of children and women and to reduce the incidences of school drop-outs and physical and social welfare and development of the child.

6. According to the writ petitioners, in the month of October, 2002, they received two interview letters whereby they were asked to appear before the Public Service 5 Commission for selection to the post of CDPO and ACDPO. According to the writ petitioners, no panel was ever published thereafter by the State Government and its authorities in their capacity as the Implementing Agency. However, all of a sudden a list of candidates appointed on promotion to the post of CDPO was published on 23.2.2004, which did not conform to the procedure as indicated hereinabove, with the result that a large number of under- graduate male employees from different zones of the cadre were promoted to the post of CDPO and ACDPO. Despite several representations made to the State Government and the Director of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare of the State Government, no steps were taken to alleviate the grievances of the writ petitioners and, on the other hand, a second list was published which was 6 prepared on the same basis as the earlier list.

7. Aggrieved by the said action on the part of the State Government and its authorities, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 herein filed a writ petition, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

9. The writ application was disposed of with the aforesaid observations and aggrieved thereby the State Government preferred an appeal before the Division Bench, being F.M.A. No.796/07, which was dismissed with the learned Judges endorsing the views expressed by the learned Single Judge and holding that the issues raised in the writ petition had been correctly decided and that no interference was called for with the same. While passing the said order, the Division Bench came to a definite finding that the writ petitioners were all employed 9 in the ICDS Project and could not, therefore, be treated as State Government employees. On the aforesaid finding the Writ Appeal was also dismissed against which the present appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal.

16. Mr. Venugopal urged that it was, therefore, quite clear that the State Government had always treated the posts of CDPF and Supervisor in the ICDS as posts under the State Government and granted Government scales of pay and all other service conditions, including pension benefits, as per the Rules of the State Government. In fact, all other categories of staff working in the ICDS Project were also granted Government scales of pay and all Government benefits, including pension benefits, 15 treating all categories of staff of ICDS as Government employees. Mr. Venugopal submitted that the introduction of the new Recruitment Rules led to the filing of the Writ Petition No.11539(W) of 2004 in the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, for the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the respondent authorities to fill up 75% of the posts of CDPO and ACDPOs by way of promotion from the female Supervisors working in ICDS Projects. The grievance highlighted in the Writ Petition was that while the Scheme had provided for filling up of 75% of the posts of CDPO and ACDPO by promotion of female Supervisors and the remaining 25% by direct recruitment, the authorities were not filling up the same and were depriving the female Supervisors of promotion to the posts of CDPO and ACDPO. According to Mr. Venugopal, the stand of the Government of India was very definite in that the 16 Supervisors and CDPOs of the Scheme were employees of the State Government and the terms and conditions of their employment, such as promotion and other service benefits were to be determined as per the Rules framed by the State Government. Mr. Venugopal submitted that as far as the State Government was concerned, promotion to the posts of CDPO and ACDPO were made following the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government and hence there was no question of any violation of any mandatory direction under the ICDS Project. It was also the stand of the State Government that the writ petitioners were Government employees and were not, therefore, entitled to file a writ petition in the High Court regarding their service conditions and that they should have instead approached the State Administrative Tribunal for necessary relief.

25. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had rightly come to the conclusion that the writ petitioners were Project employees and not employees of the State Government and they were not, therefore, amenable to the 25 conditions of service of State Government employees.

31. Having regard to the above, we are unable to accept the reasoning both of the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. We accordingly allow the Appeal and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 31

32. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) ________________J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU) New Delhi Dated: December 10,2008