Kolkata: The ongoing war of attrition between the Centre and West Bengal government over the transfer of Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay to Delhi took a new turn Monday. In a dramatic development Alapan Bandyopadhyay retired from the position as chief secretary of West Bengal. He was immediately appointed by the West Bengal government as special advisor to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
It should be stated here that the Centre had extended the tenure of Bandyopadhyay by three months beginning June 1. Now by retiring on May 31, Bandyopadhyay has refused to continue in the present post and instead has become an employee of the West Bengal government. So the Centre will not have any direct authority on him anymore. It remains to be seen what the Centre now does keeping in mind the new development.
Earlier in the day Banerjee wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, requesting him to withdraw the Centre’s order recalling Bandyopadhyay. She asserted her government ‘cannot release, and is not releasing’ the top bureaucrat.
In a five-page letter, Banerjee urged the prime minister to reconsider the Centre’s decision recalling the chief secretary. This move came after giving him a three-month extension.
Banerjee said she was shocked by the Centre’s decision. She termed the order as ‘unilateral’. She pointed out that it had been done ‘without any prior consultation’ with the West Bengal government.
“This so-called unilateral order is an unreasoned volte face and by your own admission, against the interests of the state and its people. I humbly request you to withdraw, recall, reconsider your decision and rescind the latest so-called order in larger public interest. I appeal to your conscience and good sense, on the behalf of the people of West Bengal,” Banerjee said in her letter to Modi.
“The West Bengal government cannot release, and is not releasing its chief secretary at this critical hour, on the basis of our understanding that the earlier order of extension, issued after lawful consultation in accordance with applicable laws, remains operational and valid,” she further stated in the letter.
The Centre, in a surprise move, had May 28 night sought Bandyopadhyay’s services. It asked him to report Monday by 10.00am to Delhi. However, Bandyopadhyay did not do so.
Bandyopadhyay is a 1987-batch IAS officer of West Bengal cadre. He was scheduled to retire Monday after completion of 60 years of age. However, he was granted a three-month extension as Chief Secretary of West Bengal by the Centre in view of his work in managing the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.
Referring to the Centre’s May 24 order granting extension to Bandyopadhyay for another three months after his scheduled retirement on Monday, Banerjee said, “I presume that the said order of granting extension as chief secretary, issued after mutual written consultations and on the basis of the reasons deliberated upon during such consultations in accordance with due process, stands and ought to stand in any case. In this regard, I seek your kind confirmation in public interest and in the larger interests of the people of the state of West Bengal in these difficult times.”
She also mentioned in her letter that the ‘all-India services and the laws, including the rules framed for it, have federal cooperation as the cornerstone of its legal architecture’.
Banerjee said the aim of the all-India services has been to ‘protect and give greater cohesion to the federal foundations’ of the Constitution.
According to rule 6(1) of the AIS on deputation of all India service officers, an officer on the rolls of a certain state may be deputed to the Centre or another state or a PSU with the concurrence of the concerned state.
The transfer order had come within hours after a political row erupted Friday over Banerjee curtailing her meeting with Modi on the post-cyclone situation in her state to just 15 minutes.
“I wanted to have a quiet word with you, a meeting between the PM and the CM as usual. You, however, revised the structure of the meeting to include a local MLA (Suvendu Adhikari) from your party who had no locus to be present in a PM-CM meeting,” she wrote in her letter.
