12.03.2025. PB Sl. No.1. Ct. No.25. WPA 5472 of 2015 with CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024 Mousumi Barman Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh, Mr. Subir Hazra. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Saibal Kr. Acharyya, Mr. Sukumar Sarkar. …..for the respondent no.6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been engaged as the “3rd Sahayika” in Bolkundi Khalisamari S.C. Para SSK. After being successful in the process of selection vide an interview held on October 28, 2007, she was engaged in the said SSK and her engagement was approved by the Hemtabad Panchayat Samity, vide its resolution dated October 29, 2007. Accordingly, in terms of the documents annexed with the present writ petition, the petitioner had joined in the said post with effect from November 13, 2007, and an agreement was entered into by her with the SSK on October 28, 2007. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the District Nodal Officer, 2 SSK and MSK Cell, Uttar Dinajpur Zilla Parishad dated August 4, 2014, in so far as, by dint of the same, the said authority, though having accepted the eligibility of the writ petitioner for engagement as a Sahayika in the SSK, has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated January 28, 2011, thereby declined her prayer for payment of honorarium and for continuation of her service with the said SSK. He says that such order of the District Nodal Officer, SSK and MSK Cell, Uttar Dinajpur Zilla Parishad is neither in terms of the actual facts of the case nor with the relevant documents or the law governing the conditions of service of the petitioner with the said SSK. That being so, according to the petitioner, the impugned order dated October 4, 2014, of the said respondent authority is an arbitrary and illegal one, liable to be set aside. Mr. Acharyya, who is representing the respondent no.6, that is the said SSK, has also relied on the documents annexed with the present writ petition like the joining letter of the petitioner dated November 13, 2007, and the agreement entered into by her dated October 28, 2007. He has pointed out that the agreement has been duly approved by the BDO, Hemtabad, Uttar Dinajpur. The Court is inclined to take note of the joining letter and the agreement entered into by the petitioner and the said SSK. The Court is also inclined to take 3 note of the recording of the concerned respondent officer in the impugned order that those joining letters and agreements etc. have been duly endorsed by the then Secretary and the President of the Managing Committee of the SSK. The impugned order, to the extent, it has acknowledged the eligibility of the writ petitioner to be engaged as a Sahayika in the SSK is also noted. However, the Court is unable to accept the finding of the District Nodal Officer in the said impugned order dated August 4, 2014, that the petitioner has never rendered her services in the capacity of 3rd Sahayika in the SSK. i.e. for the reason firstly, that the said impugned order is a non-speaking one, so far as the reason for the above findings of the said respondent is unspoken in the said order. Secondly, the proposition that the writ petitioner has never been engaged to render service in the said SSK turns to be an incorrect finding of the authority in view of the documents annexed with the writ petition as discussed above, that is the joining letter of the writ petitioner as well as the agreement entered into by her, genuinity of which has never been disputed in this case. At this juncture, the Court has noted an order, issued by the respondent no.6 on January 2, 2025, which is submitted in Court today by Mr. Acharyya and is taken on record. According to the same, the writ 4 petitioner has been working as the “3rd Sahayika”, SSK, since from the date of her engagement and discharging her duties with diligence and responsibility. After considering all the documents as above and the submission of the respective advocates in the present case, I find that the respondent Nodal Officer SSK and MSK Cell, Uttar Dinajpur Zilla Parishad, has committed an error in his order dated August 4, 2014, thereby recording his finding that the prayer of the petitioner for grant of honorarium as well as continuation of service is worth rejection and thus, rejected her such prayer. Instead, on the basis of the documents and findings of the said officer himself in the impugned order, the actual facts and circumstances appear to be absolutely otherwise that the petitioner has been working continuously and uninterruptedly since her date of engagement in the said SSK to be precise with effect from her date of joining on November 13, 2007, till date. In that event, the Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition with the following directions:- i) The impugned order dated August 4, 2014, is set aside. ii) Let the petitioner be immediately disbursed with the honorarium with effect from January 20, 2025, and be continued 5 with the payment in a regular manner henceforth. iii) Let the respondent no.6 immediately take up the issue of payment of honorarium to the writ petitioner with effect from the date of her joining till December, 2024, and decide the same, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) The respondent no. 6 shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in this regard, taking into consideration all the relevant documents and agreements within a period of 3 weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. Needless is to mention that having found the petitioner to be eligible for grant of honorarium in the light of discussion and observation made in the present order, the said respondent shall be at liberty to release the entire amount of arrear honorarium to the writ petitioner immediately thereafter. The 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. 6 Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, on compliance of all necessary formalities. All parties are to act on a server copy of this order duly down loaded from the official website of this Court. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)