A
B
STATE FISHERY OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION,
WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
MARCH 21, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
Service Law :
C
Se1vice conditions-Government of West Bengal-Fishery Depart-
ment-Agreement between the Govemment and the Officers' Association to
improve se1vice conditions of employees-Govemment issued orders giving
all benefits except monetmy benefits from 1961 to 1981-Employees' U!iion
approaching Tlibunal for direction to Govemment to give monetmy benefit
from 1961-Tlibunal held that since all actions were taken by Govemment
D from 1981, it would not be proper to e.xtend financial benefits from
1961-Held, in view of the finding of the Tlibunal and in view of the policy
decision taken by the Govemment it cannot be said that the decision of the
Govemment is arbitrmy--No directio11 can be given to the Govemment to
grant the monetary benefits co11tra1y to its policy which falls within the realm
E of executive policy decision.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 5388 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.96 of the West Bengal
F Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta in T.A. N?. 268 of 1996.
B.K. Satija, S. Bhowmick and Ms. Sarla Chandra for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This special leave petition arises from the order of the Administrative
G Tribunal, Calcutta, made on December 12, 1996 in Case No. TA-268/96.
The petitioners had a dialogue with the Government of West Bengal to
revise the service conditions of the employees in the Fishery Department,
namely Assistant Fishery Officers, Fishery Extension Officers etc. w.e.f.
April 1, 1961. There was an agreement reached between the Government
H and the Union of the first petitioner. Subsequently, the Government have
322
..
I
l
STATE FISHERY OFFICER'S ASSN. v. STATE
323
issued orders giving all the benefits except the monetary benefits from A
April 1, 1961 to April 1, 1981 prospectively. The petitioners have filed the
petition in the Tribunal seeking direction for payment of arrears on the
premise that it was a tripartite agreement and, therefore, the Government
is bound by the undertaking given in the agreement. The Tribunal has
perused the record and stated thus :
B
"It appears from the documents on record that the Finance Depart-
ment was not a Party to such decisions. Nor does it appear that
subsequently concurrence of the Finance Department was ob-
tained in this connection. Besides, it does not appear that the
decision were translated into any formal Government order. Be C
that as it may, it will not proper to grant such financial benefits in
favour of Assistant Fishery Officers, Fishery Extension Officers,
etc. with effect from l.4.1961 while other actions of the Govern-
ment were to take effect only from 1.4.1981."
In view of the above finding and in view of the policy decision taken D
by the Government, it cannot be said that the decision of the Government
is arbitrary. No direction can be given to the Government to grant the
monetary benefits contrary to its policy which falls within the realm of the
executive policy decision.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
R.P.
Petition dismissed.
E
Lex