15 th Jan, 2026 Item no.D/L 224 Court No. 18 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. CPAN 1028 of 2024 Tathagata Saha & Ors. Vs. Mr. Pijush Kanti Goswami With CPAN 1226 of 2024 Rajesh Parmanya Vs. Mr. Pijush Kanti Goswami With RVW 307 of 2023 The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Tathagata Saha & Ors. In WPA 22963 of 2023 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya Ms. Anita Shaw Ms. Seema Thakur ….Advocates For the Review Applicant: Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, SSC Mr. Bibekananda Tripathy ….Advocates 1. An application for review of the order dated 27th September, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the respondents on the ground that certain facts were not made known to the Court by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of consideration of the writ petition. 2. For non-disclosure of proper facts at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the order that has been passed could not be executed. 3. Specific case of the review applicants is that the scheme in which the writ petitioners were engaged was no longer subsisting on the day the writ petition was decided by the Court. The scheme stood revamped by another scheme with different clauses. The direction Page 2 passed by the Court for payment to the petitioners in terms of the earlier scheme, accordingly, could not be executed. 4. Submission of the review applicants has been opposed by the learned advocate representing the writ petitioners. 5. Specific case of the petitioners is that the scheme is still now in force. The respondent authorities have themselves directed all the Block Development Officers to take steps in accordance with the direction passed by the Court. 6. It has been submitted that despite direction passed by the Court to pay the remuneration to the petitioners, the same has not been paid. The petitioners are without their remunerations from 2023 onwards. 7. Learned advocate for the review applicants submits that in the earlier scheme where the petitioners were engaged, the petitioners would have been entitled to receive Rs. 9,500/- per month and in the revamped scheme the petitioners would receive Rs. 13,000/- per month, however, they would be required to work in the block level. 8. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Court is inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the review applicants/State respondents that the particular scheme where the petitioners were engaged is no longer subsisting. 9. The documents annexed by the writ petitioners in the affidavit filed in connection with the review dated 20th April, 2022 mentions about a revamped scheme. If the earlier scheme in which the petitioners were engaged does not survive, there is no scope for payment of remuneration in terms of the discontinued scheme. 10. The direction passed by the Court on 27th September, 2023 directing payment to the petitioners in the manner as was paid earlier, accordingly, recalled. Page 3 11. In view of the above, the review application is allowed and the same stands disposed of. 12. As the order passed by the Court has been recalled, the contempt applications filed by the petitioners alleging violation of the direction passed by the Court does not survive. 13. Both the contempt applications stands disposed of. 14. It will be open for the petitioners to take steps in terms of the memo dated 12th September, 2023 issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department regarding re-designation of the Gram Panchayat Computerized Accounts Assistant as Block Level Accounts and Administrative Assistants. 15. If the petitioners approach the aforesaid authority, the said authority shall take steps in the matter in accordance with law. 16. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)