OD-17 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/775/2025 SUJIT KUMAR DAS & ORS. VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date : 17th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. R. N. Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. R. Singh, Adv. Ms. Tanushree Das, Adv. Ms. Rushali Chatterjee, Adv for the petitioners Mr. Alok Kr. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv. Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv. for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Mr. Saurav Sengupta, Adv. Mr. N. G. Khaitain, AOR …for the State. 1. Though, the present petition has been filed by 174 number of petitioners, according to the learned Advocate for the petitioners, since all the petitioners are similarly placed, the petitioners have been joined in the petition having a common cause of action against the municipality. The learned Advocate for the petitioners would submit that the Court fees for the individual petitioners has, however, been paid. 2. The petitioners’ case proceed on the premise that the petitioners are all working for the gain at Kolkata Municipal Corporation and are all holding the post of Sub-Assistant Engineers at Indira Gandhi Water Treatment Plant (IGWTP) and other Water Generation & Boosting WPO/775/2025 2 pumping Stations, including Drainage Pumping Stations like Talla Pumping Station, Subodh Mullick Square, Gardenreach Water Works (GRWW), Mullick Ghat Pumping Station, Asphaltum- Ballygunge Drainage Pumping Station, Dhapalock Drainage Pumping Station, Entally Workshop and Maniktala Drainage Pumping Station. The petitioners’ case proceed on the premise that the service conditions of the petitioners are governed by the circulars issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation from time to time. However, the service conditions of Palta Water Works (IGWTP) and other Water Generation & Boosting Pumping Stations including Drainage Pumping Stations are also governed by the service conditions mentioned in such circular and also by the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). 3. The petitioners’ case further proceed on the premise that in order to maintain the said water supply, the petitioners are required to continue performing their duties, well past the eight hours in a day, as such are entitled to wages at overtime rate as provided in the said Act. According to the petitioners, though the Kolkata Municipal Corporation issues holiday allowance through circulars and provides overtime allowance, the same does not follow the restriction of hours of overtime under the said Act, which is strictly required to be followed in the instant case. In this context, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has, however, drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of WPO/775/2025 3 this Court in the case of Sumit Paul and Ors. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. in WPA 11677 of 2017, where the petitioners therein had approached this Court to set aside and quash certain circulars issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, and for a direction upon the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to grant overtime allowance and holiday allowance in terms of DMC(P)’s circular nos. 45 of 2008-09 dated 8th December, 2008 and Municipal Commissioner circular 14 of 2009-10 dated June 8, 2009. The co-ordinate Bench after hearing the submissions of the parties was pleased to hold that the Municipal Commissioner Circular No. 35 of 2011-12 dated September 23, 2011 did not override the circulars dated December 8, 2008 and June 8, 2009 and the said circulars are still in force and the writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits thereunder. 4. Though the municipality had preferred an appeal which was registered as MAT 1636 of 2022 (The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Sumit Paul & Ors.), the same was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 27th September, 2024, inter alia, observing as follows:- WPO/775/2025 4 “ WPO/775/2025 5 WPO/775/2025 6 5. It is also a matter of record that though a Special Leave Petition being no. 1019 of 2025 was filed challenging the same such petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 20th January, 2025. Though Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are similarly placed and should be extended the same benefits, I, however, find that the petitioners to save costs have chosen not to enclose the representations which in fact forms the basis for filing the writ petition. Ordinarily, this Court ought to have rejected the petition on such ground, however considering the fact that the petitioners would be the ultimate sufferers, this Court is inclined to dispose the present writ petition by permitting the petitioners to individually make an appropriate representation, before the authorities by disclosing all particulars in their application as regards their entitlement to be entitled to the benefits as made available in the case of WPA 11677 of 2017 before the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, ” WPO/775/2025 7 provided such representation is filed within one month from date. If, such representation is filed, the Municipal Commissioner shall decide the same in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order having regard to the judgment delivered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Sumit Paul and Ors. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. (supra) and The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Sumit Paul & Ors. (supra), within a period of 12 weeks from the date of filing of such representation. 6. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. All consequences shall follow from the order to be passed by the Municipal Commissioner. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the rights of the petitioners. (RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.) S.Seal