IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that casual/daily rated workers engaged prior to a specified date are entitled to benefits under government memoranda, regardless of their engagement against sanctioned posts.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Two appeals have been heard analogously as they involve similar issues. MAT 429 of 2024 has been directed against the order dated January 29, 2024 passed by the learned single judge in WPA 1869 of 2021 while MAT 430 of 2024 has been directed against the order dated December 18, 2023 passed in WPA 8597 of 2020. Both the appeals have been filed by the State of West Bengal and its functionaries.

2. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the private respondents were working as guards of the pumping stations maintained at the Gram Panchayat level. Although, the pumping equipment and the work is controlled and operated by the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of West Bengal, none of the private respondents had been appointed by the Government or are employees of the government. He has contended that, the general maintenance and security of the pumping stations is under the concerned Gram Panchayat and for such purpose, the Public Health Engineering Department provides monthly lump-sum payment to the concerned Gram Panchayat.

3. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that, the learned single judge misconstrued the memorandum dated September 16, 2011. He has contended that, none of the private respondents are entitled to the benefits of such memorandum. He has referred to the various clauses of such memorandum in support of such contention. In any event, he has contended that, respondent No. 25 in MAT 429 of 2024 was appointed on October 16, 2007 and therefore in any view of the matter, he does not come within the purview of such memorandum.

4. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the writ petitioner/private respondents were not engaged against any sanctioned post. They had been engaged on daily rated basis. Public Health Engineering Department or the Directorate does not have any involvement in any manner in the process of their engagement by the respective Gram Panchayats.

5. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that, the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 in Clause (x) has stated that, the provisions of such memorandum will not be applicable where contractual engagement has been made without any sanctioned post and for any specific project for a very temporary period up to a maximum 6 years. Consequently, since the writ petitioner/private respondents have not been engaged against any sanctioned post, they cannot claim benefit under the memorandum dated September 16, 2011.

6. Learned Junior Standing Counsel has pointed out that, in MAT 430 of 2024, the writ petitioner/private respondents had filed an earlier writ petition being WP No. 27389 (w) of 2014 which was disposed of by an order dated November 15, 2019 requiring the Authorities to consider the claim of the writ petitioners as to their entitlement to receive the benefits under the memorandum dated April 23, 2010 as amended. He has referred to the order dated September 25, 2020 passed by the authorities pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated November 15, 2019. He has contended that, the authorities correctly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner as, the writ petitioners were not engaged against any sanctioned post and were engaged only on daily rated basis and that, preparation of wage bills of the writ petitioners through the HRMS portal does not vest any right to the petitioner to claim benefits like other contractual workers engaged against sanctioned post. He has contended that, similar is the position so far as the other appeal being MAT 429 of 2024 is concerned.

7. In support of his contentions, learned Junior Standing Counsel has relied upon 2011 volume 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamata Mohanty) and 2007 volume 8 Supreme Court cases 264 (M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others).

8. Learned advocate appearing for the privat