29.09.2026 SL No.9 Court No.12 (gc/gb) MAT 1455 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 District Magistrate, Purulia & Anr. Vs. Ramgopal Mukherjee & Ors. Ms. Sabita Roy, Jr. Govt. Adv., Mr. Bhagbat Chaudhuri … for the Appellants. Mr. Tapash Kr. Bhattacharya, Mr. Asish Kumar Paul, Ms. Tithi Paul, Ms. Silpi Paul …for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent No.1. Re: CAN 1 of 2026 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 165 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Considering the averments made in paragraphs 7 & 8 of the said application, we are satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. 3. The delay of 165 days is condoned. 4. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of. 5. The appeal is regularized. Re: MAT 1455 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated February 11, 2026 passed in WPA 26665 of 2024. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to extend the financial benefits to the writ 2 petitioner/respondent no.1 contemplated under the Memorandum No.9008-F(P) dated September 16, 2011. His Lordship held that, it was an admitted position that the department had already extended the benefits of all prior and later circulars, bearing Memorandum No.2966-F(P) dated April 23, 2010; Memorandum No.11794-F(P) dated December 22, 2010; Memorandum No.4011-F(P) dated May 20, 2013; Memorandum No.1107-F(P) dated February 25, 2016; and Memorandum No.1033-F(P2) dated February 8, 2019. Thus, further approval for implementation of the incremental provisions in terms of Memorandum No.9008-F(P) would be a futile exercise, particularly when there was no subsisting dispute regarding the writ petitioner’s entitlement to be granted the financial benefits under the Memorandum No.9008-F(P) dated September 16, 2011. 2. His Lordship directed the benefit to be extended within one month from the date of communication of the order and the arrears, if any, were directed to be disbursed within a period of three months from the date of communication of His Lordship’s order. 3. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that on an earlier occasion, the District Magistrate had already denied the claim of the writ petitioner. Such refusal was available from the order dated January 31, 2023. The 3 said order was passed pursuant to a direction of a learned Single Judge in WPA 13273 of 2021. Suppressing such order of the District Magistrate, the writ petition was filed seeking 3% increment in the monthly salary of the writ petitioner with effect from 2020. 4. His Lordship recorded that by an order dated February 9, 2024, the Additional Executive Officer, Purulia had recommended that an administrative approval from the department should be issued so that the increment which was available to the appellant but was stopped, could be regularized. His Lordship relied on such findings and observations of the Additional Executive Officer, Purulia Zilla Parishad to support his final decision. 5. It appears that the writ petitioner was working as a daily rated worker at a camp office of the Purulia Zilla Parishad under the Additional Executive Officer. He was working as an orderly peon. His Lordship observed that as per the order of recommendation dated February 9, 2024, the benefits of the earlier memo governing the terms and conditions of engagement of daily rated workers had been extended to the writ petitioner all along and the salary was enhanced from time to time. Ultimately, in 2019 the salary of the writ petitioner was enhanced to Rs.22,000/-, with effect from January 2019. In the 4 year 2021 approval and sanction for funds was sought for from the administrative department. However, the annual increment was stopped after benefits were given for a prolonged period by following the subsequent circulars which were nothing but extension of the 2011 circular. 6. The order dated February 9, 2024, is quoted below: “1. The petitioner had been working as a Daily Rated Worker at the camp office of Addl. Executive Officer, Purulia Zilla Parishad. Consequent to superannuation of orderly peon, Sri Mukherjee had been ordered to work on daily rate basis as orderly peon of Addl. Executive Officer vile file order of Addl. Executive Officer dated 30.04.2003. 2. Sri Ramgopal Mukherjee had been extended the financial benefit i.e. 2 Pay of Rs.6,600/- and other benefits prescribed in Memorandum No.2966-F(P) Dated:23.04.2010 and Memorandum No.11794-F(P) Dated 22.12.2010 vide this office order No.1452/6/PZP Dated:19.01.2011 and matter was communicated to department vide this office order No.149/6/PZP dated:26.05.2011. 3. In terms of Memorandum No.4011 F(P) dated 20.05.2013 remuneration of casual /daily rated workers/contractual workers who have got Memorandum the dated:16- 09.2011 benefits of No.9008-F(P) have been enhanced. Pay of Sri Ramgopal Mukherjee enhanced to Rs.8,500/ w e f 01-01-2014 vide file order of Savadhipati dated 02.01.2014. 4. In terms of Memorandum No.1107 F(P) Dated:25-02-2016 remuneration of casual/daily rated workers/contractual workers who have got the benefits of Memorandum No.9008-F(P) Dated: 16-09- 2011 have been further enhanced. Pay of Sri Ramgopal Mukherjee enhanced to Rs.17,000/- pm w.e.f. 01.03.2016 vide file order of Addl. Executive Officer dated 17-05- 2017. 5. Pay of Sri Ramgopal Mukherjee further enhanced to Rs.20,000/- p m w.e.f.28.03.2016 on completion of 20 years service vide Memorandum No.1107-F(P) 5 Dated 25-02-2016 and file approval of Exe. Officer dated 08.12.2018. 6. In terms of Memorandum No.1033 F(P2) Dated 08.02.2019 remuneration of casual /daily rated workers/contractual workers who have got the benefits of Memorandum No.9008-F(P) Dated: 16-09-2011 have been enhanced further. Pay of Sri Ramgopal Mukherjee enhanced Rs.22,000/- p m w.e.f. to 01-023 2019 vide file order of Addl. Executive Officer dated 28-08-2019. 7. In the year 2021, vide this office Memo No.587/PZP Dated: 09-06 3 2021 approval and fund sanction had been sought from the administrative department. 8. Again in the year 2021, vide this Memo No.960/PZP Dated: 26-08 2021 clarification on had been sought from the administrative department regarding disparity in remuneration in comparison with similar category staffs. Moreover, in view of disparity of pay annual increment has been stopped from 01-07-2020 and this fact has been communicated to the department. 9. In reply to this office Memo No.587/PZP Dated:09-06-2021 the administrative department vide No.4555-PN/O/III/2A- 36/2021 Dated 14-09-2021 wanted to know whether the concerned staff has been allowed the financial benefits in terms of Memorandum No.9008 F(P) Dated:16-09- 2011 with due approval of the department. It is further clarified that “if not the benefits of Memorandum No.4011 F(P) Dated: 20-05- 2013, Memorandum No.1107-F(P) Dated: 25- 02-2016 and Memorandum No.1033-F(P) Dated: 08-02-2019 are not applicable to the casual workers” 10. In reply to department’s observation this office vides memo No.80/PZP Dated: 19-01- 2022 communicated that approval of the administrative department has neither been sought nor received by Purulia Zilla Parishad. 11. In reply to this office memo No.80/PZP Dated:19-01-2022, the administrative department clarified further, vide No.1317- PN/O/III/2A 36/2021 Dated: 04-03-2022, that the benefits of No.4011-F(P) Dated: Memorandum 20-05 2013, Memorandum No.1107-F(P) Dated 25-02-2016 and Memorandum No.1033-F(P) Dated: 08-02- 2019 are not applicable if they are not allowed financial benefits under Memorandum No.9008-F(P) Dated 16-09- 6 2011 4 with due approval of this department. It is worth mentioning that inadvertently no approval has been obtained from the administrative department in terms of Memorandum No.9008-F(P) Dated: 16-09 2011. Now information are being furnished in prescribed proforma statement to the Administrative Department for approval so that stopped increment may be regularised to the incumbent accordingly. In the above context, I would like to request you to consider the case of Sri Ramgopal Mukherjee by giving Administrative Approval in favour of him.” 7. The authority recorded that due to inadvertence, administrative approval was not taken with regard to the applicability of the 2011 circular in case of the writ petitioner. 8. We are of the view that, failure on the part of the authority to obtain approval, cannot be attributed to the writ petitioner, thereby, denying him his right to an increased pay. Right to livelihood is an integral part of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and such, denial affects the livelihood of the appellant. Secondly, the inability or inefficiency of the Zilla Parishad, from taking necessary approval from the Government, cannot be a ground to reject the benefit. The authority used the service of the writ petitioner and granted him his emoluments in terms of prior and subsequent memoranda, which were identical to memorandum no.9008-F(P). The contents thereof were either in addition to the 2011 Memorandum or in supercession thereof. 7 9. The decision cited by the appellants in the matter of K. Jayaram & Ors. versus Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 815 does not apply to the instant case. We are of the view that, there has been no suppression of any material facts. WPA 13273 of 2021 was disposed of vide order dated September 7, 2022, with a direction upon the Executive Officer, Purulia Zilla Parishad to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner. 10. The representation of the writ petitioner was with regard to a claim for regularization of his service in the Purulia Zilla Parishad. At the relevant point of time, objection was raised with regard to the eligibility of the said writ petitioner, for being appointed in the Zilla Parishad. It was alleged that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for such regularization. 11. By the order dated January 31, 2023, the District Magistrate, Purulia held that the writ petitioner could not satisfy that he was engaged against a sanctioned post, upon a resolution adopted in the meeting of the Purulia Zilla Parishad with regard to his engagement. He also could not produce any document in support of his attendance. 12. We are of the view that the rejection of the prayer for regularization has nothing to do with enhancement of the salary and release of the same upon granting 3% incremental benefit from 2020. Thus, the rejection of 8 the prayer for regularization was not required to be looked into at all, while deciding the writ petition. The learned Single Judge rightly passed the order by extending the benefit. We are told that the writ petitioner is continuing to work under the Purulia Zilla Parishad as a casual/daily rated worker. 13. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned. 14. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. 15. Cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the appellants and the same shall be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal for transmission of the funds of the Juvenile Justice Committee, High Court at Calcutta. Such cost is being imposed upon the appellants for filing a frivolous appeal, at the expense of the exchequer of a public authority, and for wastage of judicial time. Such cost shall be paid within a month from date. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)