Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • A.K Sengupta, J.
Acts
  • Article 226 of the Constitution being Civil Rule No. 2864(W) of 1974.
  • West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1950, 1961 and 1970
  • West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1981
  • Art. 32 of the Constitution. A Rule
  • Rules 1950, 1961 and 1970
  • PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • A.K Sengupta, J.
Acts
  • Article 226 of the Constitution being Civil Rule No. 2864(W) of 1974.
  • West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1950, 1961 and 1970
  • West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1981
  • Art. 32 of the Constitution. A Rule
  • Rules 1950, 1961 and 1970
  • PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Concise Analytical Summary of the Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The application was filed by the wife and two sons of Khameswar Halder, who died on 26 January 1981. Khameswar Halder had been promoted to the post of Sub-Overseer in the Public Health Engineering Directorate (PHED) on 23 May 1955 and retired as Sub-Overseer with effect from 1 March 1980. The petitioners sought treatment of the deceased at par with Overseers (now termed Sub-Assistant Engineers) and entitlement to the same pay scales and benefits pursuant to a recommendation contained in a letter dated 4 September 1973 issued by the Chief Engineer, PHED.

Several earlier writ petitions under Article 226 had resulted in an order of the High Court on 26 May 1978 (Civil Rule No. 2864(W) of 1974) directing that certain Sub-Overseers be treated at par with Overseers/Sub-Assistant Engineers and receive pay and benefits in accordance with the 4 September 1973 letter. The Government implemented and issued memoranda in pursuance of High Court directions, notably a memorandum of 10 September 1981 and another implementation on 11 July 1983 in respect of groups of similarly situated overseers, specifying pay scales and fixation under various ROPA/Revision of Pay Rules (1950, 1961, 1970 and later ROPA rules where applicable).

The present application contends that the deceased, being similarly situated to those earlier beneficiaries, should have been treated similarly and be entitled to back pay/arrears. The respondents conceded that the deceased was entitled to such benefits but contended that the earlier orders applied only to the petitioners in those earlier writs and that the present applicants lack locus standi after the death of their husband/father.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the benefits (scale of pay and other benefits) granted to certain Sub-Overseers by earlier High Court orders and subsequent government memoranda must be extended to Khameswar Halder (deceased) and consequently to his heirs.
  2. Whether the earlier High Court orders and their implementation by the Government had only a personal application to those who obtained the orders, or whether they required general application to all similarly situated Sub-Overseers.
  3. Whether the petitioners (the deceased's wife and sons) have locus standi to claim arrears/back wages and other benefits after the death of Khameswar Halder.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The deceased was similarly situated to other unqualified Sub-Overseers who obtained the benefit of the 4 September 1973 recommendation through writ petitions; therefore he should be treated at par and entitled to the same pay scales and arrears.
  • They relied on Supreme Court decisions (cited in the petition) to support the proposition that heirs/legal representatives can claim arrears and other monetary benefits where the right accrued before death and reinstatement/relief is not physically possible.

Respondents' Arguments

  • Counsel for the respondents (Mr. Sankar Mukherjee) contended that the earlier orders applied only to the petitioners in those specific writs and did not have general application to all similarly situated employees.
  • It was also contended that the present petitioners have no locus standi to pursue the dead employee's claim after his death.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Superintendent of Police, Manipur v. R.K. Tomalsana Singh (Dead), AIR 1984 SC 535 Where a successful claimant is dead and reinstatement is impossible, the State is liable to pay arrears of wages, salaries, emoluments (including revisions, DA, allowances) and terminal benefits to which the deceased would have been entitled. The court relied on this principle to support the proposition that monetary relief (arrears/back wages and related benefits) can be awarded to heirs/legal representatives where reinstatement is not possible.
Katheeja Bi v. Superintending Engineer, AIR 1984 SC 1388 The Supreme Court accepted a letter as a writ under Article 32 and granted monetary relief (special contribution and balance of gratuity) to the widow of a deceased employee whose claims had been neglected. The court cited this decision to demonstrate that courts may afford effective monetary relief to widows/heirs and to emphasize the duty to provide redress to helpless persons whose rights accrued before death.
Abhinash Chandra Gautam v. Union Territory of Tripura, AIR 1984 SC 320 Where an employee was held to have been unjustly discharged and thus entitled to back wages, the Supreme Court directed payment of back wages to the heirs/legal representatives of the deceased claimant, with consideration of earnings. The court invoked this authority to support payment of back wages/arrears to the deceased's heirs and the principle that a claim for back wages survives and can be satisfied to heirs/legal representatives.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded through the following analytical steps, relying strictly on the material and authorities cited in the opinion:

  1. Admission of Entitlement: The respondents did not dispute that Khameswar Halder was entitled to the benefit of the pay scale granted to other unqualified Sub-Overseers; it was conceded that he was similarly situated to those earlier petitioners.
  2. On Generality of Orders: The court rejected the respondents' contention that the earlier orders and the subsequent government memoranda applied only to those who had litigated. The court applied the core principle of "equal pay for equal work" and held that once the Government admitted a particular scale of pay for the incumbents of a post and implemented it in practice, it was unfair and unreasonable to limit benefit only to those who approached the Court. The court emphasized that benefits given to many cannot be withheld from others similarly situated; the correct course would have been a general order extending benefits to all similarly situated Sub-Overseers.
  3. On Locus Standi and Survivability of Claim: The court addressed the contention that the petitioners lacked locus standi because the cause of action related to the deceased. It found that the cause of action accrued to the deceased during his lifetime and had not abated. The remedy sought was monetary (back wages/arrears) and not physical reinstatement; thus the claim could be pursued by the deceased's heirs.
  4. Reliance on Precedents: The court relied on the cited Supreme Court precedents (Manipur v. Tomalsana Singh (Dead); Katheeja Bi; Abhinash Chandra Gautam) to support the proposition that where a right to monetary benefits accrued before death, heirs/legal representatives are entitled to recover those benefits. These precedents were used to demonstrate both the permissibility and the principle of awarding arrears/back wages and terminal benefits to heirs where reinstatement cannot be physically effected.
  5. Nature of Right: The court stressed that the judgment would not create a new right for the petitioners; it merely declared the right that the deceased already had in the pay scale granted to similarly situated persons. Consequently, applying past orders and government memoranda to the deceased's service record and directing fixation and payment of arrears was appropriate.
  6. Relief Framing: On this basis the court directed the respondents to treat the deceased at par with Overseers (now Sub-Assistant Engineers) and to fix the salary of the deceased in accordance with the government orders dated 10 September 1981 and 11 July 1983. Specific time frames for fixation and payment of arrears were mandated.

Holding and Implications

APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding:

  • The court directed the respondents to treat Khameswar Halder (deceased) at par with the Overseers now termed as Sub-Assistant Engineers and to fix his salary in accordance with the departmental orders/memoranda dated 10 September 1981 and 11 July 1983.
  • The respondents were ordered to complete the salary fixation within four weeks from communication of the order and to pay the arrears to the petitioners within three weeks thereafter.
  • There was no order as to costs; the application was allowed.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The decision requires immediate administrative action — salary fixation for the deceased as per the stated memoranda and payment of arrears to his heirs within the specified timelines. It provides relief in the form of monetary benefits to the widow and sons of the deceased.
  • Scope and precedent: The court framed the relief as a declaration and application of an existing entitlement rather than the creation of a new legal right. The opinion underscores the principle that benefits extended to some similarly situated employees (and accepted by the Government) should not be confined to litigants only; where rights accrued before death, heirs may recover monetary relief. The court did not purport to lay down a novel legal doctrine beyond applying established authorities cited in the judgment.

Order: Application allowed. No order as to costs.

Show full summary ...

    Lily Haldar & Ors. v. State & Ors.

    1. This application has been made by the wife and two sons of one Khameswar Halder who died on 26th January 1981. The said Khameswar Halder was employed in the Public Health Engineering Directorate, Government of West Bengal. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Overseer under the Public. Health Engineering Directorate on 23rd May 1955. He retired as Sub Overseer with effect from 1st March, 1980.

    2. The case of the petitioners is that during his lifetime the said Khameswar Halder, since deceased should have been treated at par and given the same scale of pay and other benefits to the Overseers now termed as Sub-Assistant Engineers in terms of the letter dated 4th September 1973 issued by the Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Directorate.

    3. By the said letter dated 4th September 1973 the Chief Engineer recommended that the scale of pay of the Sub-Overseer who did not possess the requisite Sub-Overseer's certificate or equivalent qualification should be given a scale of pay of Rs. 175/- 325/- from 1.4.81 or with effect from the date of completion of five years' service as Sub-Overseer whichever is later and pay scale of Rs. 300/- 500/- with effect from 1st April, 1970, for the sake of justice.

    4. Eight Sub-Overseers of the Public Health Engineering Directorate moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution being Civil Rule No. 2864(W) of 1974. The said Rule was disposed of by P.C Borooah J. on 26th May 1978 by the following order:

    “The petitioners will be treated at par from the date of their respective appointment with the Overseers now termed as Sub Assistant Engineers and will receive the same scales of pay and other benefits which are available to the said Sub-Assistant Engineers in accordance with the letter dated 4.9.73 issued by the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Directorate”.

    5. The Government accepted the said order and on 10th September 1981 the following memorandum was issued by the Government:

    “In pursuance of the above direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Governor has been pleased to direct that the said marginally noted unqualified Sub-Overseers of the Public Health Engineering Dte shall be allowed to draw the pay in the pay scales as admissible to Overseers (now designated Page: 452as Sub-Assistant Engineer), with Sub-Overseer's qualifications from time to time as indicated below:

    i) Rs. 100-5-215 10-225/- from 14.6.54 to 31.3.61

    ii) Rs. 175-7-245 8-325/- from 1.4.61

    or with effect from the date of completion of 5 years of services as Sub-Overseers whichever is later.

    iii) Rs. 300-10 420-15-600/- from 1.4.70 and onwards.

    Their pay in the respective scales will be fixed in terms of the Revision of pay Rules 1950, 1961 and 1970 respectively.

    Prior to 14.6.54 there was no separate scale for qualified and unqualified Sub-Overseers under the Public Health Engineering Dte”.

    6. It may be mentioned that D.K Sen J. in C.O No. 4289(W) of 1982 also directed that the petitioners in the said application shall be treated at par with the overseers designated as Sub-Assistant Engineer for all purposes including the scale of pay and other benefits.

    7. On 11th July 1983 the Government implemented the order passed by the High Court in the case of 17 more overseers who were petitioners in 13 writ applications. The said order, inter alia provides as follows:

    “In pursuance of the above direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Governor has been pleased to direct that the said petitioners shall be allowed to draw pay from time to time in the scale of pay as admissible to Overseers (now designated as Sub-Assistant Engineers) with Sub Overseer's qualifications as indicated below:

    i) Rs. 100 5-215/10-225/- from 14.6.54 to 31.3.61

    ii) Rs. 175-7-245 8-325/- from 1.4.61 with effect from the date of completion of five years of service as Sub Overseers whichever is later.

    iii) Rs. 300-10-420 15-600/- from 1.4.70 and onwards.

    Their pay in the respective scale will be fixed in terms of the West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1950, 1961 and 1970 respectively and also the West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 1981 where applicable”.

    8. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the said Khameswar Halder since deceased who was an overseer was entitled to the benefit of the scale of pay as given to the other unqualified overseers of the Public Health Engineering Directorate who moved this Court. He was similarly situated with them. It is however contended by Mr. Sankar Mukherjee learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that the said orders could only apply to the said petitioners and have no general application. I am unable to accept this contention. It is now well settled that there should be equal pay for equal work and no discrimination should be made amongst the persons similarly situated. When it is admitted by the Government that a particular scale of pay is payable to the incumbents of the post, the Government cannot take the plea that such pay scale would be allowed only to those who Page: 453came to this Court and obtained order in their favour. Where the Government accepted and implemented the orders of the High Court and gave benefits to large number of employees, there cannot be any fair or reasonable ground for not allowing benefit of the said orders to others who are similarly situated but have not come before this Court. All the Sub Overseers who came to this Court got the benefit on the basis of the said memorandum dated 4th September 1973 recommending the pay scale for unqualified overseers and this Court in those earlier writ petitions directed the implementation of the said recommendation. That was dore. The Government should not compel other similarly situated persons to come to the Court to obtain benefit extended to others. It should have been extended by a general order to all similarly situated Sub Overseers.

    9. The other contention raised by Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the respondents is that the petitioners have no locus standi to make this application upon the death of Khameswar Halder who in his lifetime would have obtained such benefit.

    10. Mr. Ashok Chakraborty learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the several decisions of the Supreme Court. He has relied on the decision in the case of Superintendent of Police, Manipur v. R.K Tomalsana Singh (Dead), reported in AIR 1984 SC 535 through Lrs. There the order of dismissal of the original petitioner who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the State of Manipur was challenged. The Supreme Court held that the departmental inquiry was not held in accordance with the relevant law and the Judicial Commissioner rightly set aside the order of dismissal of the deceased respondent from service and declared that the original petitioner, respondent shall continue to be in service and would be entitled to all the benefits which he would have had if he had continued in service. The Supreme Court then observed:

    “Unfortunately, the original petitioner, respondent herein is dead and his physical reinstatement is not possible. We, therefore, clarify that the State of Manipur shall be liable to pay all arrears of wages, salaries and other emoluments including revision in pay and dearness allowance and other allowances and any other benefits including the terminal benefits to which the deceased would have been entitled if he had continued in service.”

    11. In the case of Katheeja Bi v. Superintending Engineer, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1388 the facts are that Smt. K. Bye is the widow of one Abdul Salam who retired as a Line Inspector, grade 1 in the employment of the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board on 31.7.76 and who unfortunately died on 15.10.76 Smt. Katheeja Bi failed to get from her late husband's employers certain amounts which she claimed were due to her husband. She knocked continuously by in vain at the doors of the Regional Provident Commissioner Page: 454Madras, Central Provident Commissioner New Delhi and the Minister for Labour Government of India for several years for redress. In sheer desperation she ultimately turned to the Supreme Court as last resort. Unable to engage a lawyer she addressed a letter to a learned Judge of the Supreme Court setting forth her grievance. After being processed in the Registry the letter was treated by the Supreme Court as a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. A Rule Nisi was issued and the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board had appeared before the Supreme Court through counsel. There the Supreme Court directed the respondent Board to pay to the petitioner the whole of the Special Contribution under Regulation 37 which was payable to her husband and the balance of the gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, part of which was unpaid.

    12. Supreme Court observed:

    “We must add that the case had left us with the feeling of uneasiness and distress at the plight of helpless persons like the petitioner whose repeated representations to those in authority were left uncared for so long despite the tediously frequent protestations of social justice”.

    13. In the case of Abhinash Chandra Gautam v. Union Territory of Tripura, reported in AIR 1984 SC 320 a workman was discharged from service. The said discharge was held to be invalid and illegal and he was held to be continuously in service which entitled him back wages. The question of computing the back wages arose in that case as the deceased served as a teacher and his earning as a teacher was to be deducted from back wages payable to him by the respondents. The Supreme Court fixed the amount earned by the deceased at Rs. 100/- per month and directed back wages to be paid to the hairs and legal representatives of the deceased.

    14. The cause of action in this case has not abated. The claim which has been made by the wife and sons of the deceased in this application accrued to the petitioner's husband before his death. It is a claim for back wages upon the fixation to be made in terms of the order passed by this Court. In Abinash Chandra Gautam (supra) the Supreme Court directed the back wages to be paid to the wife of the deceased who was discharged from service and whose discharge was held to be illegal and bad. The question of computing back wages arose in that case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the back wages to be paid to the heirs and legal representatives. It is not disputed that the deceased in his lifetime was entitled to the benefits which the Government granted to the other unqualified Sub-Overseers. When the Government is committed to do social justice, it would be unfair and unreasonable if the widow is deprived of the benefits which her husband in her life time earned. A new right is not being created. It is only the declaration of the right that the first petitioner's deceased husband had in the pay scale granted to other similarly situated persons.

    Page: 45515. For the reasons aforesaid this application succeeds. The respondents are directed to treat Khameshar Haldar since deceased at par with the overseer now termed as Sub-Assistant. Engineer and to fix the salary payable to Khameshar Halder since deceased in accordance with the orders dated 10th September 1981 and 11th July 1983 passed by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Public Health Engineering Branch Such fixation shall be made within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and the arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within three weeks thereafter.

    16. There will be no order as to costs.

    Application allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Lily Haldar & Ors. v. State & Ors.
    (Aug 26, 1986)