ABU SOUFIAN SHAIKH @ SOUFIAN SHAIKH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
WPA/14940/2026 · 2026-07-10
Suvra Ghosh
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27845 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27845 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
20 jdt. 10.07.2026 jb.
WPA 14940 of 2026
Abu Soufian Shaikh @ Soufian Shaikh. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Das Md. Hafiz Ali Ms. Purnima Panda Ms. Swarnali Ghosh Ms. Maria Sharwari …. For the Petitioner Mr. Samir Kr. Datta Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty …. For the State
Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner was appointed as data entry operator in Paharpur Gram Panchayat on 1st August, 2006 and his nature of work is permanent/perennial. He has completed 19 years of service as casual worker (Group C) and applied for benefits in terms of the circular dated 16th September, 2011 and the subsequent circulars issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department. He submitted a representation before the concerned authority in this regard which not being considered, he approached this Court in a writ petition being W.P. 24675(W) of 2017. By an order passed on 27th October, 2017, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
directed the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Berhampore, Murshidabad to consider the
2 representation and take a decision in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. The order was not complied with for which fresh writ petition was filed being WP 18771(W) of 2016. By an order passed on 30th January, 2017, this Court reiterated its direction in the earlier writ petition. In compliance thereof, the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Murshidbad, being the 5th respondent herein, took up the representation for consideration and by an order passed on 6th November, 2017 turned down the prayer of the petitioner for the reason that the engagement of the petitioner was not in conformity with the terms and conditions of the existing memorandums and he was not engaged in a sanctioned post. However, by a subsequent order passed on 19th November, 2018, the said authority held that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefits of the memorandum dated 25th February, 2016. This order was issued with the approval of the Principal Secretary of the department dated 9th October, 2018. The order also records that the petitioner was employed against a sanctioned post in the district of Murshidabad. Pursuant to the said order, the Block Development Officer, Berhampore Development Block by an order passed on 20th December, 2018 reiterated the observation of the 5th respondent and held the petitioner to be eligible for the
3 benefits under the Memorandum dated 16th September, 2011, 25th February, 2016 and 20th May, 2018. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that since the 5th respondent has chosen to ignore his earlier order dated 6th November, 2017 and has held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Memorandums referred to above by the subsequent
order passed on 19th November, 2018 which was followed by the Block Development Officer by the order passed on 20th December, 2018, the 5th respondent is
directed to implement the said order and accord the benefits to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. All parties shall act on the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J.)