IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side 28.07.2026 S/L 09 Court No. 4 (Naba) W.P.S.T. 11 of 2025 Sastipada Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. K.B.S. Mahapatra, Mr. Aditya Shit ...for the Petitioner Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, ld. A.G.P., Ms. Tanusree Ghosh ...for the State 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that in 2006, he was engaged on a sum of ₹ 300/- per week to perform duties three days in a week as an attendant in the operation theatre at the Government Hospital in question. 3. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that by raising a baseless issue regarding his engagement not being against a sanctioned post, he is not being extended benefit of the office Memorandum dated 16.09.2011 bearing No. 9008-F(P) issued by the OSD & EO Special 2 Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Audit Branch of the Finance Department. The petitioner is being deprived the benefit by such wrong consideration, despite the fact that he is engaged against a sanctioned post. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner was not only entitled benefit under the Memorandum No. 9008-F(P), but also the subsequent Notification Nos. 1107- F(P) and 1003-F(P) dated 25.02.2016 and 08.02.2019 respectively. 4. We find that an admitted position is the petitioner’s engagement to perform the duties of an attendant, three days in a week at the operation theatre. The Memorandum No. 9008- F(P) prescribes the eligibility for benefit thereunder. Clause (i) of 9008-F(P) reads: “i) The casual/ daily rated / contractual workers who have rendered 10 years of service continuously with at least 240 days attendance each year may remain engaged in the same status and capacity till their attaining the age of 60 years.” 5. From bare perusal of the eligibility criteria extracted herein, it is obvious that even if for the sake of argument, the Court was to accept that the petitioner was on a sanctioned post, he would not be entitled to benefit under the Memorandum, since the admitted date of his engagement is 3 29.03.2006. The petitioner, by no stretch of imagination, would thus fulfil ten years of service continuously having 240 days’ attendance in each year, as contemplated under Memorandum dated 16.09.2011 bearing No. 9008-F(P). 6. We considered it significant to take note of another admitted fact that his engagement initially was for three days a week. The petitioner, therefore, is not in a position to claim any benefit under the Memorandum No. 9008-F(P). 7. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal’s rejection of petitioner’s claim by an order dated 25.04.2024, passed in O.A. No. 322 of 2022, therefore, in our considered view, does not require any interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)