31st July, 2026 (D/L No.30) Ct. No.4 (SKB) W.P.S.T. 70 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025 Kamal Kanta Jha Versus The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Amal Kumar Roy, Mr. Argha Banerjee … for the appellant. 1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short) in O.A. 783 of 2023. The O.A. was filed assailing an order dated 11.10.2023 issued by the District Welfare Officer rejecting the petitioner‟s claim for re-engagement on contractual basis, and for grant of benefits for the period after his disengagement dated 01.11.2018. The Tribunal did not entertain the petitioner‟s Original Application and declined to give any relief. Order of the Tribunal dated 14.03.2024 is the subject matter of the present writ proceeding. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner was working on contractual basis as a Darwan-cum-Night Guard in the St. Davis Central Hostel. The contractual services of the 2 writ petitioner/appellant was dispensed with in 2018 as per the averments made in a representation dated 12.07.2022 filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner thereafter has approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in short „Tribunal‟) and the High Court earlier. Pursuant to orders passed by the forums therein, his representation was considered by the District Welfare Officer by an order dated 11.10.2023 after affording an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant. The appellant‟s/petitioner‟s claim for reinstatement with back wages was rejected. 4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner that being a casual employee, his existence in the department was governed by the extant provisions including one Memorandum bearing No.9008-F(P) dated 16.09.2011. Para 11 of the said memorandum contemplates that such employees may be terminated in case of involvement in criminal case/misconduct/delinquency or incapacitation etc. or if such employee opts out of the engagement. 5. He submits that the memorandum provides for disengagement of the casual employee based on 3 a criminal proceeding. The criminal proceeding, which form the basis of petitioner‟s/appellant‟s disengagement has since resulted in his acquittal by judgment of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Calcutta dated 28.06.2022. 6. The substratum having ceased to exist, petitioner was required to be put back in his contractual status along with arrears for the period since his disengagement in 2018; and re- engagement on casual/contractual basis. 7. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal, the record; and considered the submission of the learned advocates. 8. A plain reading of the order of the District Welfare Officer dated 11.10.2023 reveals that while the petitioner was serving in contractual capacity, there was a series of complaints by inmates of the Hostel, female staff of the Hostel, higher officials in the organization, alleging that the petitioner/appellant was disturbing the peaceful environment of the Hostel. There were allegations regarding the petitioner misbehaving with the female staff and also abusing and misbehaving with the superior authorities. There was also an allegation that despite petitioner‟s disengagement he along with his 4 family was unauthorisedly occupying the staff quarter. Several such instances based on several complaints from various complainants were considered in the order dated 11.10.2023. The fact of the writ petitioner‟s implication in a criminal case is a fact in addition to the series of allegations based on which the District Welfare Officer arrived at an opinion/conclusion not to continue with the contractual engagement of the writ petitioner/applicant. 9. The fact that he was acquitted in a criminal case, therefore, ipso facto is not sufficient to claim reengaged on a contractual basis, let alone, for grant of any benefits for the period after his disengagement. 10. The petitioner/appellant is not a government servant. He is not entitled to any protection under the CCS Rules. The authorities, however, were required to ensure substantial compliance with principle of natural justice. The same is evident from plain reading of the order dated 11.10.2023, which manifests that an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner. The order is also founded on reasons after a detailed consideration. 5 11. The order dated 11.10.2023, therefore, was rightly not interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of judicial review. 12. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of extra ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. 14. The connected application is, thus, disposed of. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)