02.01.2025. PB Sl. No.6. Ct. No.25. WPA 4686 of 2020 Munmun Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ekramul Bari, Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain, Mr. Imtiaz Ali. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Anirban Ray, Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Mr. Saptak Sanyal, Mr. Sayan Ganguly. …..for the State. The petitioner is a contractual part time teacher in the respondent school, working there continuously and uninterruptedly since July 11, 2013, till date. The present writ petition is filed by her to pray for equal pay for equal work done by her at the school, as commensurate to that of the approved and regular teachers. According to the writ petitioner, she has been discharging her duties in the said school similarly as an approved and permanent teacher including taking classes of the students of higher secondary section. She has cited certain documents to submit that on the administrative side also, her services have been taken similarly as that of a regular teacher, by assigning her various important duties. Thus, she has filed the present case to seek relief of equal pay commensurate to that of a regular permanent teacher. Mr. Bari, learned advocate for the petitioner has cited the judgments of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court dated July 4, 2019, and September 3, 2020, respectively in writ petition W.P. 14283 (W) of 2014 and appeal being MAT 1221 of 2019. He has also relied on the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated September 3, 2020, in Civil Appeal No.14355 of 2021. By relying on the judgments as referred to above, he would say that the issue as involved in the present case is now well settled, by dint of the judgments and orders of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. He has submitted that the Court has settled the law by directing equal pay for equal work to the teachers, appointed on contractual part time basis, but, discharging functions similarly as the regular and permanent teachers. He would seek that the petitioner be extended with the benefit in terms of the law settled in the judgments as referred to above. Mr. Basu Mullick, learned advocate is appearing for the State respondent. He would submit that the petitioner being a contractual and part-time appointee for the respondent school, she cannot be equated with that of a permanent teacher, who has entered into the service by dint of proper recruitment process, in 2 accordance with law. He would say that the petitioner’s service is liable to be extended by the school authority from time to time and it is purely temporary in nature. Thus, there is a substantive difference of the petitioner as regards the process of induction in service, which would restrain the petitioner to be granted with the benefit, equally as a permanent and approved teacher. The Court finds that so far as the question of grant of equal pay to the contractual and part time teachers is concerned, the law has been settled by dint of judgments of this Court, as referred to above on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, in accordance with the law as settled and on the basis of sufficient material that the concerned person have discharged equal duties as good as a permanent and approved teacher, he/she should be extended with the benefit of equal pay similarly as a permanent approved teacher. Hence, Court finds it proper to direct the respondent no.2 to consider these aspects in the light of the law settled by the Courts vide the judgments as referred to above and come to a finding thereupon. In doing so, the respondent authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the school authority and consider the relevant documents. It shall conclude the entire process, as above, within a period of four weeks from the date of 3 communication of copy of this order and pass a reasoned order, if not, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of equal pay for equal work, is extended by it to her. With the direction as above, this writ petition is disposed of. Since no affidavit has been called for, allegations made in the writ petition, shall be deemed to have not admitted by the respondents. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, on compliance of all necessary formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) 4