1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/15/2026 IA No. CAN/1/2026 Shri S. Prem Kumar and Others Vs. Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council and Others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the appellants Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondents With MAT/76/2026 IA No. CAN/1/2026 Sri Vijaya Puram Municipal Council and Others Vs. Shri S. Prem Kumar and others Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the appellants Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the respondents September 23, 2026 [SR] Item Nos. 19 & 20 1. The writ petitioners claimed parity with other who were disengaged from the Municipal Council and approached the writ court for grant of benefit of 1/30th of pay of the minimum scale of the relevant post plus dearness allowance as contemplated under O.M.No.289 dated 22.09.2017, as modified/amended from time to time. 2. The petitioners also claimed reinstatement. 2 3. Petitioners claim to have rendered service as Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs), as per the details in the writ petition extracted herein below: Sl. No. Name Initial Date of Joining Total No. of Years worked under PBMC Date of Birth Place of Posting section/Division 1. Shri S. Prem Kumar 01.02.2019 05 years 06.02.1999 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Marinna Park) 2. Shri T.Ganesh 01.04.2017 07 years 13.09.1989 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Marina Park) 3 Shri K. Dhanniah 01.07.2021 03 years 20.09.2001 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Marina Park) 4. Smt K. Sundramma 01.04.2020 04 years 25.07.1982 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Marinna Park) 5. Shri K. Ravi Kumar 01.09.2023 08 months 17.09.1996 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Marinna Park) 6. Shri N. Harish 01.09.2019 05 years 05.02.1993 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Gandhi Park) 7. Shri B. Srinivas 01.06.2012 11 years 25.04.1984 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Gandhi Park) 8. Shri M. Ashwin 01.04.2023 01 years 11.02.1998 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Gandhi Park) 9. Shri M. Suresh 09.05.2023 01 years 07.02.1987 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Gandhi Park) 10. Shri A. Yarranna 01.04.2017 07 years 17.03.1991 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Gandhi Park) 11. Shri G. Krishna Mohan Rao 01.12.2018 06 years 20.10.1984 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Gandhi Park) 12. Shri M. Paneer Selvam 01.11.2018 06 years 06.07.1993 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Marinna Park) 13. Smt S. Kokilla 01.04.2023 01 years 01.01.1990 Horticulture under EE-II (Works) (Marinna Park) 4. It was the case of the writ petitioners that the other similarly situated were also disengaged in an around the same time. The petitioners were disengaged on 01.06.2024. While the others with whom the petitioners are claiming parity, availed remedy before the writ court, Division Bench; and the conciliation officer, the present writ petitioners took no steps. 3 5. In the conciliation proceeding pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) those person with whom the petitioners were claiming parity were taken back in service by the employer. 6. Claiming parity, the petitioners are claiming a direction for their reinstatement and grant of an enhanced payment in terms of OM No.289 dated 22.09.2017. The same was allowed by the writ court. 7. The present appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner raising a grievance that the relief insofar as reinstatement is concerned, was not allowed by the writ court. 8. The respondent-municipal council also has filed an appeal challenging the direction of the learned Single Judge for grant of 1/30th pay under OM No.289 dated 22.09.2017. 9. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties. 10. Insofar as the grievance regarding reinstatement, we find that there was no basis whatsoever for the writ petitioners to claim parity with the others who were allowed to resume their duties by the employer themselves upon examination and consideration of their claim in a conciliation proceeding before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 11. Insofar as the grant of enhanced remuneration under OM No.289, we find that no case was made out on facts, in the writ petition based on which the petitioners could make out a claim for parity. 12. At this juncture, learned advocate for the writ petitioners/appellants in MAT/15/2026 submits that the 4 petitioners would also approach the authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act claiming the benefits, in accordance with law. 13. He submits with reference to the material available with the writ petitioners, that they would approach the authorities seeking parity with those ten persons who were granted the benefit of reinstatement by the employer themselves. 14. In view of such submission being advanced today, we refrain from going into the merits of the matter as the entire issue is yet to be considered by the authority, in accordance with law. 15. Leaving the writ petitioners to avail remedy before the authority under the Industrial Dispute Act, in accordance with law, the present appeals are disposed of. 16. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside, and the writ petition is disposed of, but reserving the liberty of the petitioners as recorded herein above. 17. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )