Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 17236 of 2025 Smt. Radha Rani Ghorai Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Purnasis Bhuniya For the State : Mr. Sukanta Ghosh Ms. Sneha Chatterjee Mr.Arghya Chatterjee For the Mission : Mr. Md. Sarwar Jahan Director Ms. Mousumi Mitra Ms. Salini Sen Ms. Sahina Parvin For the respondent : Mr. Dilip Sinha Nos. 5 and 6. Ms. Tithi Paul Heard on : 17.03.2026, 30.03.2026, 28.04.2026, 13.05.2026, 08.06.2026, 17.06.2026 and 01.07.2026 Judgment on : 01.07.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. At the very outset, it must be noted that though the petitioner by the present writ petition seeks to challenge the decision of the Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal, Ex-Officio Special Commissioner, UD & MA Department, dated 23rd June, 2025, the writ petitioner has not 2 WPA 17236 of 2025 challenged the order in very many words, though the purport of the writ petition seeks to challenge the same. 2. Accordingly, on the prayer of Mr. Bhuniya, learned advocate representing the petitioner, leave is granted to the petitioner’s advocate- on-record to insert a prayer in the form of challenge to the order dated 23rd June, 2025, passed by the Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal, Ex-Officio Special Commissioner, UD & MA Department. 3. Let such correction be carried out in course of the day and in presence of the advocates for the parties. 4. The petitioner claims to have the requisite qualification as is required for the purpose of appointment in the post of Sahayika. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as Sahayika in Modan Mohanpur Shishu Siksha Kendra (in short, SSK) under Pratappur No.I Gram Panchayat at present under Panskura Municipality in the academic session of the said SSK in 2002-2003. 5. The petitioner would claim that her appointment has from time to time been renewed without fail until 31st August, 2018. Incidentally, while the petitioner was working as Sahayika in the SSK, the petitioner’s appointment was not renewed after 31st August, 2018 on the ground that the petitioner had crossed age of 60 years, having regard to the memorandum dated 30th May, 2000 issued by the Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department. In the circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in a writ petition which was registered as WPA 12598 of 2015. 3 WPA 17236 of 2025 6. Records would reveal that the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 3rd February, 2016 by noting that the initial engagement of the petitioner was on the basis of the guidelines framed by the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development. Funds towards payment of honorarium to Sahayikas under SSK which is sanctioned by the State Government is both in respect of SSKs operating in Panchayat area and SSKs operating in municipal areas. Accordingly, the Sahayikas appointed under SSKs operating in Panchayat areas and Sahayikas appointed under SSKs operating in municipal areas discharge the same duties. The petitioner was initially engaged and continued as a Sahayika under the Panchayat area was entitled to continue till attaining the age of 65 years. By noting that two persons similarly situate cannot be treated differently, this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition by setting aside the memorandum dated 30th December, 2014, inter alia, observing as follows:- “The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1997. The petitioner is serving in the said post of Sahayika on and from the date of her initial appointment on the basis of the guidelines of the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development, till the date and that agreements were entered into by the SSK and upon approval of the competent authority honorarium was disbursed in her favour. The initial engagement of the petitioner was on the basis of the guidelines framed by the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development. Fund towards payment of honorarium of the Sahayikas under the Sishu Siksha Karmasuchi is sanctioned by the State 4 WPA 17236 of 2025 Government both in respect of SSKs operating in Panchayat area and the SSKs operating in Municipal are. The Sahayikas appointed in SSKs operating in Panchayat area and the Sahayikas appointed in Municipal area discharge same duties. There is a difference in the eligibility criteria as specified in the memorandum dated 30th May, 2000 of the Department of Municipal Affairs and in the memorandum dated 28th August, 2009 and 21st February, 2013 of the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development. The petitioner was initially engaged in the year 1997 and she is an existing Sahayika and is accordingly entitled to continue in such engagement till the attainment of 65 years of age. It is well settled that two persons similarly situated cannot be treated differently and that Article 14 would apply when invidious discrimination is meted out to equal and similarly circumstanced persons and that it would be inequitable to mete out dissimilar treatment to similarly placed persons. Two different guidelines cannot be followed by two different departments under the State Government and under the same scheme. Apply such proposition of law to the undisputed facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner could not have been denied renewal and could not have been stated to be overaged by the memorandum impugned. Accordingly, such decision of the respondent no.4 as contained in the memorandum dated 30th December, 2014 is set aside and the respondents are directed to approve the renewal of engagement of the petitioner on and from 1st January, 2014 and to execute necessary agreement with the petitioner and to disburse all arrears of honorarium on and from the date it was stopped on the basis of the memorandum dated 30th December, 2014 issued by the 5 WPA 17236 of 2025 respondent no.4 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is further directed that the respondents shall also commence payment of monthly honorarium to the petitioner on and from the month of February, 2016. With the above observations and directions, this wit application is disposed of.” 7. The petitioner had since then continued as Sahayika until she reached the age of 65 years on 31st October, 2018. Upon reaching the age of 65 years, the petitioner had applied for terminal benefits as are payable to the Sahayikas by way of one-time payment. Since the petitioner’s representation was not adhered to, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in WPA 3926 of 2022. Such writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 8th April, 2022, inter alia, granting leave to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate authority for consideration of her prayer along with all supporting documents. Though, in response thereto, the petitioner had applied before the Director of Local Bodies. The application filed by the petitioner was kept pending. Following which the petitioner was compelled once again to approach the Court complaining inaction on the part of the authorities in a writ petition which was registered as WPA 11486 of 2022. Such writ petition also stood disposed of by an order dated 20th May, 2025 by directing the Director of Local Bodies to decide on the petitioner’s application, presented before him, in accordance with law after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 6 WPA 17236 of 2025 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was called for hearing and the order dated 23rd June, 2023 has been passed. 9. As would appear from the said order the Director of Local Bodies West Bengal has observed that since SSK under Urban Local Bodies of West Bengal are governed by the guidelines of the department of municipal affairs vide memorandum dated 30th May, 2000 and since, in such memorandum there is no provision with regard to the terminal benefits of Sahayaks/Sahayikas under West Bengal Local Bodies of West Bengal, the claim of the petitioner does not fall under the purview of the municipal area and the office has no authority to consider the prayers of the petitioner due to non-existence of government rules and guidelines. 10. The contesting parties have placed their arguments. The State has placed before this Court a report which appears to be a verbatim copy of the stand taken by the Director of Urban and Local Bodies. 11. Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4 has, however, drawn the attention of this Court to a bunch of circulars/memoranda issued by the Government from time to time. The first of such memoranda relied upon by Mr. Jahan is the memorandum dated 23rd April, 2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal wherein it has been observed that after careful consideration of the matter, the Governor has been pleased to order that the casual/ daily rated workers who are remaining attached to various establishments of the government departments/directorates/regional offices for not less than 10 years as 7 WPA 17236 of 2025 on 1st April, 2010 and have rendered services for at least 240 days each year will be allowed the benefits enumerated therein. Amongst the benefits provided for is one-time payment of Rs. 1 lakh as one time cessation of engagement of benefit. The said memorandum also provided that the detailed modalities will be worked out subsequently for implementation of the order. 12. According to Mr. Jahan, the said memorandum was subsequently followed up by further memorandum issued by the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development dated 23rd April, 2010 which dealt with extension of benefits to the Sahayikas/Sahayaks of Shishu Shiksha Kendras, Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas and Mukhya Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas of Madhyamik Shiksha Kendras and Academic Supervisors. Subsequently, on 22nd December, 2010 an elaborate procedure was laid down by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal, as regards to the modalities for one-time benefit which would morefully corroborate from the aforesaid memorandum dated 22nd December, 2010. This memorandum specifically provided that the benefit of the Government Order No.2966F(P) dated 23rd April, 2010 will be applicable mutatis mutandis to Panchayat bodies/ULB’s/Statutory Bodies, etc. 13. Mr. Jahan has also placed reliance on the memorandum dated 16th September, 2011 which by referring to the two previous memoranda dated 23rd April, 2010 and 22nd December, 2010 notes that after careful consideration and in supersession of the previous orders issued by other departments in the matter, the Government has been 8 WPA 17236 of 2025 pleased to order that casual/ daily rated/contractual workers who are remaining attached to various establishments of the government departments/directorates/regional offices/other organizations for not less than 10 years continuously as on 1st August, 2011 and have rendered services at least 240 days each year will be allowed with the benefits as noted therein. In the scope of such benefits under clause (vi) it has been provided that a casual/daily rated/contractual workers who fulfill the conditions as laid down in sub-para (i) above will continue to be engaged in such manner till he/she attain the age of 60 years when and he/she will be paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as one-time cessation of engagement benefit. Mr. Jahan has also drawn attention to the clause (XII) of such memorandum where the benefit of the memorandum has been made applicable mutatis mutandis to the Panchayat bodies, ULBs and statutory bodies. 14. In addition thereto, he would submit that the issue with regard to engagement of Sahayaks/Sahayikas in SSKs and MSKs has been dealt with separately by the memorandum dated 29th February, 2016 wherein the restriction of 240 days of continuous service having regard to the peculiar nature of service as are applicable to the Sahayaks/Sahayikas have been considered, and accordingly in their cases it has been observed that considering the entire matter and taking in view the finance department memorandum no.9008 F(P) dated 16th September, 2011, scheme for terminal benefit for Sahayak/Sahayikas of SSKs, Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas and Mukhya Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas of MSKs and the Academic 9 WPA 17236 of 2025 Supervisors may be allowed the benefit, provided they have served at least 10 years continuously on the date of termination on attaining the age of 60 years. In other words the requirement of 240 days was removed by the above memorandum. 15. According to him, the latest circular on the subject which has been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal dated 7th March, 2024 makes the situation absolutely clear. To more fully appreciate the same, the relevant memorandum dated 7th March, 2024 is extracted hereinbelow:- Government of West Bengal Finance Department, Audit Branch "NABANNA" 325 S.Chatterjee Road, Howrah-711 102 Email ID. finreceipt-wb@bangla.gov.in No. 1219-F(P)/FA/N/2M/18/24 Dated, Howrah, the 7th March, 2024. MEMORANDUMRANDUM 1. Different categories of Casual/Daily Rated/Contractual Workers covered under No. 9008-F(P) dated 16:09.2011 of Finance Department and the IT personnel brought under No. 192-IT/06/2020/P&AR-e-Gov dated 16.10.2020 of P & AR Department along with certain other categories of contractual employees like Para Teachers, SSK and MSK teachers, ASHA workers, Honorary Health Workers, Anganwari Workers, Anganwari Helpers, Civic Volunteers, Village Police Volunteers, Home Guard Volunteers, Auxiliary Fire Operators etc. (list is not exhaustive) with specific approval of Finance Department have been allowed one time terminal benefit on attaining the age of 60/65 years. The amount of such benefit has been revised from time to time through different orders/approval of Finance Department. 2. The question of upward revision of the terminal benefit has been under active consideration of the Government for some time past. 3.Now, after careful consideration of the matter, the undersigned is. directed to say that the Governor has been pleased to decide that with effect from 01.04.2024, the amount of one time terminal benefit for the contractual personnel stated in para 1 above on attaining the age of 60/65 years will be enhanced to Rs. 5.00 lakh from 2.00 lakh/3.00 lakh on existing terms and conditions. 4. The said benefit will be sanctioned by the concerned Head of the Department on verification of eligibility of the contractual employees without making further reference to Finance Department. Sd/ Manoj Pant Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal 10 WPA 17236 of 2025 16. Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 supports such stand. 17. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record and having regard to the above disclosure, I am of the view that the order passed by the Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal, Ex-Officio Special Commissioner, U.D. & M.A. Department dated 23rd June, 2025 appears to be perverse as the same does not take into consideration the aforesaid memoranda which conjointly specifically provide that Sahayaks/Sahayikas who has completed 10 years of continuous service and has attained the age of 60 years shall be entitled to one- time cessation benefit. The same has been more particularly clarified in the memorandum dated 25th February, 2016 and the subsequent clarification issued by the Additional Secretary dated 7th March, 2024. 18. In light of the above, while setting aside the order of 23rd June, 2025, I direct the Principal Secretary, Finance Department to take a decision in the matter and if it is found that the petitioner has worked for more than 10 years and attained the age of 60/65 years, the benefit of the memorandum as noted above shall be extended to the petitioner. 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. 11 WPA 17236 of 2025 Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sb/sg A.R. (Court)