Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6471 (CAL)

SUBEDA BIBI v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/1196/2025 · 2026-01-14

Amrita Sinha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

14-01-2026 Item No.11 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.1196 of 2025 Subeda Bibi -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kiron Sk. Mr. Sarajit Roy Mr. Sudaish Islam …for the petitioner Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, SGA Mr. Subhabrata Das …for the State 1. The petitioner claims to be a cook and helper of a school. She alleges that she has been illegally and arbitrarily restrained from performing her duties. 2. On similar occasion the petitioner approached this Court earlier. In compliance of the order passed by the Court, the Block Development Officer conducted a hearing and passed an order on May 3, 2019 recording that the existing cook- cum-helper would prevail and continue to work and there would be no change in this regard. 3. At the time of passing the order, the BDO took into consideration the submission of the headmaster of the school that at present all the existing cooks are functioning satisfactorily. 4. Allegation is that despite direction passed by the BDO, the petitioner is being restrained from performing her duties. The petitioner has also mentioned that she was not paid her due honorarium for the period during which she rendered her duties. 5. A representation from the petitioner before the BDO highlighting her grievances is pending consideration for a considerable period of time. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent authorities to permit her to perform her duties. 6. As it appears that the petitioner’s representation seeking resumption of work is pending consideration before the BDO, accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the Block Development Officer, Sagardighi Development Block, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation strictly in accordance with the prevailing guidelines, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties at the earliest but positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to all the parties. 8. If the payer of the petitioner is allowed, then necessary consequential steps shall be taken. If any amount is found due and payable to the petitioner, the same shall be disbursed in her favour without any further delay. 9. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 10. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J] 2 3