Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE FISHERY OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, WEST BENGAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Decided
21 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 322 · 1997 INSC 310
Also cited as
  • (1997) 9 SCC 65 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This special leave petition arises from the order of the Administrative 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 and the Union of the first petitioner. Subsequently, the Government have issued orders giving all the benefits except the monetary benefits from 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 :

pp. 322–323, margin F

"It appears from the documents on record that the Finance Department was not a Party to such decisions. Nor does it appear that subsequently concurrence of the Finance Department was obtained in this connection. Besides, it does not appear that the decision were translated into any formal Government order. Be 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-

p. 323, margin B

ment were to take effect only from 1.4.1981."

p. 323, margin C

In view of the above finding and in view of the policy decision taken 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.

p. 323, margin D

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 323, margin E