03.9.2026 Sl.13 Ct.No.-34 sg WPA 28522 of 2025 Timir Ranjan Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Gangadhar Das Mr. Tanmoy Chattopadhyay …for the petitioner. Mr. Dibashish Basu Ms. Sneha Dutta Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri Ms. Puja Mondal …for the State. 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging a notification dated January 29, 2025 along with Memo No. 179/SCH -25 dated February 27,2025 as well as order issued vide Memo no.229/SCH dated March12,2025 and the reasoned order dated December 1,2025 coupled with the order issued vide Memo no.324 /SCH -25 dated April 08,2025 issued by the Directorate of Child Rights & Trafficking, Shaishali Building, 3rd Floor, Salt Lake City,Sector-1, Kol-64 being respondent no.2 dated January 29th, 2025 re-fixing the salary at a reduced rate and thereby sought to deduct the alleged overdraw of the petitioner . 2. The factual matrix unveils that the petitioner had served for long 30 years of continuous service as a teacher at Suryodaya Children Home for Deaf and Dumb Boys and Girls under respondent no.7 Raiganj, within District Uttar Dinajpur since June 13, 1994 against a sanctioned post but on casual basis and his 2 status was recognized by the respondent authorities and had allowed protection of tenure of service and financial entitlements on several occasions. 3. The Department of Finance Government of West Bengal issued of Memo No .9008-F(P) dated September 16,2011 of the Finance Department ,Audit Branch extending benefits as provided therein to certain categories of employees including those engaged on casual basis in various government establishment upon fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioner was extended with the benefits vide order dated December 12, 2012 and March19, 2013 with effect from August 1, 2011. On May 20, 2013 the Government enhanced the remuneration in terms as provided in Memo no.9008-F(p) dated September 2016 and that too was extended to this petitioner . The remuneration of the petitioner further revised vide order dated September 6, 2013 and subsequently on several occasion in accordance with the memorandum published from the Ministry of child and welfare Department. 4. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that Respondent 7 in the year 2017 sought for a clarification from Respondent no.2 regarding enhancement of the remuneration on the basis of completion of 22 years of service as on 2017 .The petitioner was further extended enhancement of remuneration with effect from March 2016 and thereafter 2019. 5. On August 9, 2019 post facto approval granted to the enhancement of pay of the petitioner. 3 Thereafter suddenly the petitioner was served with a letter by Respondent no.7 whereby relying on the letter dated January 29,2015 of Respondent no 2 informed that his total overdrawn amount is Rs 12,57,169 after preparing re-fixation during the period from August 2011 to January 31 ,2025 and directed to refund the said amount . 6. Due to such notice the salary of the petitioner got substantially got reduced from earlier order of fixation issued by the higher authorities and further directed the petitioner to refund an amount of Rs 12,57,169/- said to have been overdrawn by the petitioner and to return it within 18 months in equal monthly installments . 7. The petitioner gave a representation before the respondent no.7 about the incorrect fixation and arbitrary reduction of the salary and demanding illegally, the overdrawn amount, on March 22, 2025. 8. The writ petitioner had to file a writ petition since no response was received from the concerned Authority, being WPA 17771 OF 2025 and by an order dated August 28, 2015 the learned co-ordinate Bench after hearing all the parties directed respondent no.2 to hear out the grievance of the petitioner and to decide his claim in the light of the case made out in the writ petition. 9. Pursuant to such direction the concerned Department the Respondent no.2 passed an order on December 1,2025 where it was held that the previous fixation allowing consolidated remuneration in terms of Finance Department Memo No. 1091 –(F)(P) 4 1.3.2024, erroneously took into account the period prior to 1.8.2011. 10. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously argued since after his joining as a casual teacher he was given benefit on various occasion in terms of the office memo passed from time to time and his salary was increased to Rs. 24,500/- by virtue of an order dated 22nd February, 2019. In the year 2012 from the Department of Women & Child Development and Social Welfare benefit was allowed with respect of 10 daily rated/casual/contractor workers engaged before 1. 10. 2010 against the sanctioned post and list of those employees as annexed with the writ petition and Commissioner of Social Welfare Benefit was further directed to follow rules and regulation as laid down as fixed Finance Department Memo No. Memo No. 9008- (F) (P), dated 16.9.2011 in respect of providing benefits to the workers. Therefore the entire action on the part of the respondent no.2 and the interpretation made is in stark contrast to the Finance Department Memo no.9008-F(P) dated 16.8.2011.The order passed by the Respondent no.2 is devoid of any reason of deciding the date of engagement when throughout he was given such benefit. 11. Learned Counsel representing the State, on the other hand seeks to justify the impugned action on the basis of the admission of the petitioner before the respondent.no.2 at the time of hearing and it is submitted that previously an incorrect fixation was made erroneously as would be reflected from the 5 reasoned order dated 1st December, 2025 and therefore, date of engagement ought to have been reckoned in terms of such order that is with effect from 1.8.2011. It is further argued that the petitioner himself submitted before the authority at the time of hearing he joined in the institution as outsourced voluntary worker which has been clarified that purely on honorary /voluntary basis and he only received honorarium during that period and not engaged under any regular or sanctioned post. The petitioner must not get the benefit of an erroneous calculation when it is very much apparent. 12. Heard and considered the rival contention of both the learned advocates and perused the materials on record. The short question arises for consideration is whether the employees similarly situated can be subjected to unequal pay fixation merely because their appointment or joining dates were recorded on different dates. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner joined as a casual teacher at the Suryodaya Children Home for Deaf and Dumb Boys and Girls, Raiganj. It is also not dispute that subsequent thereto during continuation of service on various occasion he was given the benefit from time to time in accordance with the direction passed by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Women & Child Development and Social Welfare and his salary was enhanced .The respondents have permitted the petitioner to receive salary and increment on the existing basis for a substantial period. 6 13. In addition to the same vide an order dated 28th December, 2012 under Memo no.8122-SW/3E- 50/2009 the Joint Secretary of Government of West Bengal addressed a letter to Department of Women & Child Development and Social Welfare, West Bengal whereby benefit in terms of Memo No. 9008- F(P), dated 16.9.2011 was allowed to the daily rated/ casual / contractual worker against sanctioned posts under the said Department. The said order further disclosed that such direction as passed in accordance with the direction of the Hon’ble Governor who has pleased to allow 10 daily rated/casual/contractual workers engaged before April 1,2004 against sanctioned post and list of such names annexed with the writ petition contains the name of the petitioner . That apart two of such employees of the same list was subsequently given the benefit reckoning the date of engagement in service that is from 1995 and 1996 respectively as can be revealed document annexed in affidavit-in-reply dated 26th August, 2025. 14. The order passed by the authority in consonance with the direction of learned Co-ordinate Bench only mentioned about previous erroneous calculation without mentioning the reason for such erroneous fixation or on what basis such fixation was considered to be erroneous. The purpose of issuing the Memorandum no.9008-F(P) was to provide security of tenure ,appropriate emolument and certain terminal benefits .The petitioner’s engagement was accepted against a sanctioned post .In the decision of Jaggo vs Union of India & Ors. it was observed by the Hon’ble 7 Apex Court that- “It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees particularly in government institutions ,often face multifaceted forms of exploitation .While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short- term or seasonal needs ,they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees . Employees engaged for work that is essential,recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as ‘Temporary’ or ‘contractual ’even when their roles mirror those of regular employees .Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity ,security and benefits that regular employees are entitled to ,despite performing identical tasks “. 15. The Learned Co-ordinate Bench also observed that several factual enquiries are required to be conducted on the basis of the existing records relating to the petitioner’s employment and only on the finding of such fact finding enquiry the pay fixation can correctly be done. Unfortunately the respondent no2 could only assign the reason as erroneous calculation without ascertaining the cause of arriving such conclusion and hence is not sustainable. 16. Different dates of joining can never be attributed to the petitioner for any fault on his part. It is not only a case where there is mis-calculation of incorrect pay fixation for once. It is persistent from the record that he was given the benefit taking into consideration against a sanctioned post. 8 17. The impugned order and the notification in so far its refixation of the salary of the petitioner taking the date from August 1, 2011 suffers from arbitrariness and is violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. 18. Therefore this court is of the view that an administrative circular or notification cannot override the fundamental requirement of non-discrimination in the matter of pay-fixation .The petitioner is therefore entitled to have the salary applicable immediately prior to the impugned reduction, granting all the consequential benefits to which the petitioner would have been entitled had the impugned action not been taken. 19. In the light of above discussion the order dated January 1,2025 followed by the Memo issued by the Directorate of Child Rights & Trafficking on 29th January, 2025 from the office Directorate of Child Rights & Trafficking is hereby quashed qua the petitioner . 20. Respondent no.7 is directed to forthwith implement the said Memo No. 9008-F (P), dated 16.9.2011 as amended thereafter considering the petitioner at par with the two other employees who have been granted similar benefit as appears from the order dated 26th August, 2025. Such exercise is to be completed within period of 8 weeks from this date. 21. The petitioner is further entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the arrear amount from this date till date of payment. 22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 9 23. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after compliance of all legal formalities. 24. All parties shall act in terms of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]