02.09.2025 Item No.1 Ct. No.42 Ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. 6338 of 2025 Bhim Kumar Gain alias Bhim Gain & ors. -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Samim Ahammed Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya … for the petitioners Mr. Jaharlal De Mr. Durga Bhusan Mukhopadhyay … for the State 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of Memo No.9008-F(P) dated 16th September, 2011 as amended from time to time to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners contend that they have been appointed in the post of night guards in different panchayats. They have completed 10 years of service and on each year they have discharged 240 days as required under the notification. Since benefit under the notification dated 16th September, 2021 has not been granted, the petitioners are constrained to prefer the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Samim Ahammed, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that as per the report of the State the only objection to extension of the benefit to the petitioner is that they have not been 2 employed/appointed against sanctioned posts. The above issue has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench in State of West Bengal & ors. – versus- Ranjit Saha & ors. in M.A.T. 429 of 2024 and observed that even if the appointment is made not against any sanctioned post, the benefit under the memo dated 16th September, 2011 should be extended to such employees. He seeks for appropriate direction upon the respondent no.3, the Chief Engineer (Head Quarters) Public Health Engineering Directorate, Government of West Bengal for extending such benefit to the petitioners. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Jaharlal De, leaned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioners have not made any comprehensive representation before the authority concerned for redressal of their grievance. However, if such representation is made, the State authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. He relies on the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Debabrata Chakraborty and ors. –versus- State of West Bengal & ors. (WPA 17767 of 2025) in this regard. There is no privity of contract between the State and the employees/petitioners. 5. Upon going through the report filed by the State it is found that the State has raised the issue that the 3 engagement of the petitioners was not against any sanctioned post. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench while deciding such issue has observed as follows :- “19. The issue is whether, such writ petitioners stand excluded by reason of Clause (x) of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 or not. Such clause has provided that the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 will not apply where the contractual engagement has been made without any sanctioned post and for a specific project for a very temporary period up to maximum 6 years or on the conclusion of the project whichever was earlier. 20. The exclusion clause of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 namely, Clause (x) has to be construed strictly as against the State as the State is the author thereof. Moreover, State has extended benefits to casual/daily rated/contractual workers by such memorandum. Therefore, such clause has to be interpreted so as to extend the benefits to such targeted beneficiaries. 21. Reading clause (x) of the memorandum dated August 16, 2011 on the anvil of the propositions noted in the preceding paragraph, it provides that, the benefits of the memorandum will not be available when the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied namely:- i. Contractual engagement had been made without any sanctioned post. ii. Contractual employment had been made for specific project. iii. Contractual employment had been made for a maximum period of 6 years or till the conclusion of the project whichever is earlier. 22. In our understanding, all three conditions as noted above have to be satisfied for a contractual employee to be denied the benefits of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 by reason of Clause (x) thereof. 23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case none of the writ petitioners have fallen within the exclusion contemplated under Clause (x) of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011.” 7. There is no dispute that the petitioners were engaged as casual/daily rated workers in different districts under Public Health Department. 8. The ratio of the above decision makes it abundantly clear that the contractual engagement has been 4 without any sanctioned post cannot be the only condition to deny the benefits under the notification dated 16th September, 2011. The other two conditions are also to be satisfied. In the present case, the other two conditions are wanting. 9. No such material is placed before the Court disputing the contention of the petitioners that they have discharged their respective functions for more than 10 years and they have discharged 240 days in each year. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged prior to 1st August, 2011. 10. In view of the above, the respondent no.3, the Chief Engineer (Head Quarters) Public Health Engineering Directorate, Government of West Bengal is directed to extend the benefits of memo no.9008-F(P) dated 16th September, 2011 as amended from time to time in favour of the petitioners, if they are otherwise entitled to, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. Learned advocate for the petitioners is directed to communicate this order to the respondent no.3, the Chief Engineer (Head Quarters) Public Health Engineering Directorate, Government of West Bengal for necessary compliance. 12. With the above direction, the writ petition being WPA 6338 of 2025 is disposed of. 5 13. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)