15th July, 2026 (D/L No.46) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.S.T. 489 of 2013 With CAN 1 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2026 Sagar Sen and others Versus State of West Bengal and others Mr. Indrajit Biswas … for the petitioners. Mrs. Chandreyi Alam, ld. AGP, Ms. Runu Mukherjee … for the State. CAN 1 of 2026 (Restoration application) 1. The application is filed for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed due to non- appearance on 22.08.2023. It is stated in the application that due to inadvertence, the date of the case was wrongly posted in the diary, which resulted in non-appearance on the fateful day. 2. We accept the cause shown in the application to be sufficient for restoration. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is restored to its original file and number. 4. CAN 1 of 2024 is disposed of. CAN 2 of 2026 (Condonation of delay) 5. CAN 2 filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is dismissed as not pressed. 2 Re: W.P.S.T. 489 of 2013 6. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No.120 of 2013. The petitioner claimed benefit of Memorandum dated 16.09.2011, which was rejected by the Tribunal of its order dated 19.09.2013, which is put to challenge in the present writ proceeding. 7. The learned advocate for the writ petitioners made submissions on merits of the writ petition. 8. The petitioners were the applicants before the Tribunal claiming benefits under a Memorandum dated 16.09.2011 issued under the signature of the OSD & E.O., Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, Audit Branch. The Memorandum contemplates grant of some security of tenure and other benefits to the casual/daily rated/contractual workers. 9. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioners that the Tribunal had misdirected itself by providing an erroneous premise that the benefit of the Memorandum dated 16.09.2011 was admissible only to the casual/daily rated/contractual workers appointed by the government. The opening paragraph of the Memorandum reveals otherwise. The only 3 requirement is that the employee should be working in the government. 10. The present petitioners, appointed by agencies, were working in the government and, therefore, are entitled to the benefit of the Memorandum dated 16.09.2011. 11. The learned State advocate has opposed the prayer. 12. Considering the submissions and the Memorandum dated 16.09.2011, we find no force in submission advanced by the learned advocate for the writ petitioners. The Memorandum dated 16.09.2011 in unambiguous terms is applicable to the casual/daily rated/contractual workers who have remained engaged in various government establishments. The petitioners were engaged through private agencies as is evident from the identity cards issued by the authorities allowing them to operate the pumps. The petitioners, therefore, had no basis to claim the benefit under the Memorandum dated 16.09.2011. 13. According such consideration, the Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the writ petitioners. 14. We find no infirmity in the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 120 of 2013, requiring interference in exercise 4 of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)