Ct. No.4 D/L-5 09.04.2025 (Naba) W.P.S.T. 211 of 2024 Smt. Chameli Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Manik Lal Poddar ...for the Petitioner Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. AGP, Ms. Sangeeta Roy ...for the State Respondents 1. The petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the S.A.T.’) claiming the benefit of a memorandum dated 23.04.2010. 2. The same was issued to provide some security of tenure, appropriate emoluments and other benefits to the persons engaged as a casual employee having a particular number of working days per year, consistently for 10 years as on 01.04.2010. 3. The petitioner claims to be working as a Casual Sweeper, since the year 1998 and was, thus, claiming to be eligible for grant of the benefits contemplated under the memorandum dated 23.04.2010. Her claim has been rejected by the authorities which brought her to the S.A.T. by filing O.A. No. 161 of 2023. The S.A.T. has also 2 dismissed the O.A. by recording that she is receiving ₹ 3000/- per month admissible to her and therefore, there was no necessity to examine the matter and pass any directions. 4. From the records, we find that a representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner was considered by the Sr. Law Officer & E.O. Asst. Secretary to the Government of West Bengal of the Fisheries Department by a communication dated 17.02.2023. The said communication has rejected the petitioner’s claim. 5. On going through the communication dated 17.02.2023, as well as the order passed by the S.A.T. in O.A. No. 161 of 2023, we find that neither the authority nor the S.A.T. has taken into consideration the communication dated 27.12.2012, issued by the Joint Director of Fisheries (ME & MS) recommending the petitioner’s claim for grant of benefits under the memorandum dated 23.04.2010. The same contains details regarding her work done as a casual worker since 1998. 6. Since this aspect has not been considered, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the authority is unsustainable. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned A.G.P., on the other hand submits that the order passed by the authority on 3 17.02.2023, as well as the S.A.T. does not require any interference as the same manifests consideration of the petitioner’s claim by assigning a reason that the petitioner was a Part- time Sweeper. 8. We find no force in the submission of the learned A.G.P. Such finding is de hors the recommendation dated 27.12.2012, as neither the authority nor the S.A.T. has taken this recommendation into consideration. This relevant material has been overlooked by the authorities while considering the petitioner’s claim. Since the consideration is without reference to the material on record, we find such consideration to be unsustainable. 9. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the S.A.T. in O.A. 161 of 2023. 10. We also quash the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Sr. Law Officer & E.O. Asst. Secretary to the Government of West Bengal of the Fisheries Department. 11. We remit the matter for consideration of the petitioner’s claim by considering the recommendation dated 27.12.2012. Such consideration is to be accorded by respondent 4 no.4, positively within 08 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. The Writ Petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)