Justice Amrita Sinha, Calcutta High Court
Faith & Trust Of Public In Judicial System Can’t Be Permitted To Be Eroded: Calcutta High Court Restrains State From Granting Benefit To Non-Teaching Staff
|The Calcutta High Court remarked that as the Petitioners are jobless and are in need of financial assistance, as such, they rightly feel that they have been deprived of the benefit of the Scheme.
The Calcutta High Court has restrained the State from granting benefit to the non-teaching staff, saying that faith and trust of public in judicial system cannot be permitted to be eroded.
The Court was deciding a batch of three Writ Petitions in which West Bengal Livelihood Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025 was under challenge.
A Single Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha observed, “The State ought to appreciate the supremacy of the rule of law. As per Article 144 of the Constitution, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The law laid down by the highest Court of the land is binding upon all and everybody will be bound to follow the same no matter how unpalatable it is. The faith and trust of the public in the judicial system cannot be permitted to be eroded. The act of the State respondents in formulating the impugned Scheme, prima facie, appears to overreach the order passed by the High Court affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
The Bench remarked that as the Petitioners are jobless and are in need of financial assistance, as such, they rightly feel that they have been deprived of the benefit of the Scheme.
Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya represented the Petitioners while Advocate General (AG) Kishore Datta represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioners prayed for an Interim Order. The recitals of the Scheme mentioned that the same is meant to provide limited livelihood support and social security on humanitarian grounds on purely temporary basis to the distressed families of non-teaching staff in Group C and Group D categories recruited through the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission and who lost their jobs and salaries consequent to the Court proceedings. The Scheme benefitted the distressed family which means the immediate family of any non-teaching staff in Group C or Group D category recruited through the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission. As per the Scheme, an eligible non-teaching staff in Group C and Group D category, belonging to a distressed family, shall be entitled to receive cash assistance of rupees twenty-five thousand and twenty thousand per month respectively as livelihood support for the family due to sudden unemployment and/or on humanitarian grounds with effect from April 1, 2025.
The Scheme mentioned that consequent to the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2025 (State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharya & Ors.), several thousand persons rendered jobless overnight which affected their right to life and livelihood. The State formed an opinion to provide support by way of interim relief until final adjudication of the Review Petition or appropriate application filed before the Apex Court or any further Petitions as may be filed in accordance with law and till the proceedings attain finality. The Petitioners averred that they have the requisite qualification for being appointed in Group C and Group D post in any non-Government aided/financed educational institution in the State.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “Any public spirited person may file Public Interest Litigation challenging the Scheme as the money for the Scheme will be paid from the State exchequer, but the same will surely not take away the right of an individual to approach the writ Court if he has genuine reasons to feel aggrieved by the Scheme.”
The Court emphasised that once the highest Court of the land has decided the issue of illegal appointment conclusively and opined that the appointments were result of fraud, no person who was the beneficiary of a fraudulent act of the statutory authority ought to be provided any support, that too, from the public exchequer.
“… the balance of convenience and inconvenience does not stand in favour of the authority to proceed to make payment in terms of the impugned Scheme. … As regards the submission of the State regarding non impleadment of the alleged beneficiaries in the writ petition, the Court is of the opinion that none has a vested right, far less fundamental right, to receive payment from the State exchequer without performing any duty and/or work. It does not appear that fundamental right of any of the so-called beneficiaries will be infringed if any order is passed restraining the State from giving any effect to the subject Scheme for the time being”, it added.
The Court said that proceeding to provide payment to the tainted candidates instead of proceeding to obtain refund of the payment received by them, calls for interference by the Court.
“The State would be obliged to make payment to persons for rendering their service to the State. Paying persons gratuitously who are not serving the State but are either sitting at home or engaged elsewhere, does not appeal to the Court. Permitting the State to proceed with the Scheme will tacitly support fraudulent activity, cheating and corruption”, it further observed.
The Court was of the view that a litigant can never be restrained from filing any Application before the Court and whether the said Application will be entertained or not is the sole discretion of the Court; but the party to the review proceeding cannot take the stand of pendency of the proceeding only because of filing of the Review Application.
“As regards the submission of the State that the petitioners should approach the Court in contempt jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that if a litigant contends that the Scheme has been formulated in wilful, deliberate and intentional violation of the order of the Court, then the course of approaching the competent Court in contempt jurisdiction is always open. Here, the petitioners do not allege violation of the Court’s order. The petitioners challenge the Scheme which is a consequential step taken by the State after order is passed by the Court”, it also said.
The Court noted that formulation and publication of the Scheme is an absolute fresh and new cause of action and it will not be proper for the Court to enter into and decide the validity of the impugned Scheme in its entirety at this stage, without granting the State an opportunity to file Affidavit.
“The respondents are, accordingly, directed to file affidavit in opposition within a period of four weeks; reply if any, within a fortnight thereafter. Liberty to mention the matter for hearing on conclusion of the aforesaid time period. … As an interim measure, the State is restrained from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned Scheme till 26th September, 2025 or until further order, whichever is earlier”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court restrained the State and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Prokash Mandal & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Case Number: WPA 11520 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Advocates Sudipta Dasgupta, Bikram Banerjee, Baibhav Roy, Arindam Sit, Firdous Samim, Gopa Biswas, Payel Shome, Swati Dey, and Saikat Mallick.
Respondents: AG Kishore Datta, AGPs Somnath Ganguly, Swapan Banerjee, Advocates Pratiti Das, Debanjan Mondal, Sandip Dasgupta, Mahima Cholera, Deepan Sarkar, Deepti Priya, Sumita Shaw, Diptendu Narayan Banerjee, Debanjan Mondal, Sandip Dasgupta, Mahima Cholera, and Soumen Chatterjee.