08.07.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.45 WPA No. 28496 of 2024 Shankar Mishra Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Agniswar Bhuiya Mr. Aniruddha Singha Roy ..for the petitioner Mr. D.N.Ray, Ld. G.P. Mr. Madhu Jana Ms. Puja Sonkar …for the State The petitioner was appointed as a data entry operator on contractual basis against sanctioned post and rendered service for 22 years 2 months 27 days for at least 240 days every year. He was recommended for financial benefit as per para 3 of G.O.No. 9008-F(P) dated September 16, 2011 by the Executive Officer/ Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur-II Development Block. The petitioner’s salary was reduced to Rs.9,000/- from Rs.19,000/- per month for which he approached this Court in a writ petition being WPA No. 10701 of 2023. During pendency of the writ petition, his service was discontinued by the authority. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge his discontinuation of service in accordance with law. The Executive Officer/Block Development Officer recommended the petitioner and Shri Shaktipada Bauri for financial and other benefits in terms of memo dated September 16, 2011. Though Shri Shaktipada Bauri was accorded approval to his enhancement of financial and other benefits in terms of the said Government Order, the petitioner’s case was not considered. The petitioner claims parity with Shri Shaktipada Bauri and seeks his reinstatement in service as well as his regularisation under the relevant Government Order. It appears from the report in form of affidavit submitted by the 4th respondent that the salary of the petitioner was reduced to Rs.9000/- due to paucity of fund of the Panchayat Samity. Such explanation is unheard of and cannot be considered. The authority says that the petitioner did not attend office regularly and remained absent from his duty for which his contractual engagement was discontinued. There is no document to show that explanation was called for from the petitioner prior to termination of his service or that he was granted an opportunity of hearing by the authority before taking such decision. The conduct of the authority is undoubtedly arbitrary and illegal. The Block Development Officer has recommended the petitioner and Shri Shaktipada Bauri for entitlement of financial and other benefits in terms of the memo dated September 16, 2011. Since Shri Shaktipada Bauri who is similarly circumstanced with the petitioner has already been favoured with such benefit by an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on July 2 25, 2024, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit. His termination being made without granting him an opportunity of hearing is also arbitrary and dehors the law. Also, the salary of an employee cannot be compromised due to paucity of fund of the authority. In the said backdrop, this Court directs the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, being the 2nd respondent herein, to reinstate the petitioner in service and extend financial and other benefits to him at par with Shri Shaktipada Bauri who has been granted such benefit, with effect from July 25, 2024. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh,J) 3