Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3366

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J
BISWAJIT ROY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS – Respondent
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) | W.P.A. NO 13283 OF 2025 | W.P.A. NO 13285 OF 2025 | W.P.A. NO 13287 OF 2025 | W.P.A. NO 13290 OF 2025 | W.P.A. NO 13296 OF 2025 | W.P.A. NO 13300 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Chandra Nath Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Sounak Mondal, Adv., Mr. Abhirup Halder, Adv., Mr. Anirban Saha Ray, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, AGP
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, AGP
Mr. Suman Dey, Adv.
Ms. Subhasri Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, Adv.
Ms. Sayantani Bhattacharyay, Adv.

Contractual teachers similarly circumstanced as beneficiaries in a prior ruling are entitled to identical service benefits; equity demands no discrimination.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Right to Equality - Writ petitions challenge order refusing service benefits to certain teachers based on prior Supreme Court decision. Court held that contractual teachers similarly circumstanced as private respondents should not be denied identical benefits, ensuring non-discrimination and equal treatment. (Paras 2, 10, 12-13)

(B) Employment Law - Rights of Contractual Teachers - Contractual part-time teachers, working in government-aided schools, sought similar service benefits as others similarly placed. Court highlighted that non-litigation does not forfeit the right to receive equitable treatment. (Paras 3-5, 12)

(C) Judicial Precedent - Court reiterates principles established in prior judgments regarding equality and benefits for similarly situated individuals. (Paras 6-12)

Findings of Court:
The order by the State limiting benefits was set aside, and directions were issued to provide service benefits to the petitioners within four weeks.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenge of decision denying service benefits. (Para 2 , 6)
2. claims of teachers for service benefits. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. defense by state against claims. (Para 7 , 8)
4. criteria for extending benefits to similar teachers. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. setting aside of the impugned order with directives. (Para 13 , 14)

Hearing Concluded On : 25.08.2025 Judgment On : 25.08.2025 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:

1. Matters are heard in presence of the learned advocates representing the petitioners and State respondents. Since common issue is involved in all the writ petitions, these writ petitions are heard together as analogous matters.

2. In the writ petitions order dated 21^st February, 2025 of the Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, School Education Department is under challenge whereby prayer of the writ petitioners for granting identical service benefits which were extended in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16^th July, 2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.14355 of 2021 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs.

Anirban Ghosh & Ors.) was spurned.

3. Writ petitioners being the contractual part time teachers working in higher secondary section of different schools, have come up with separate writ petitions claiming service benefits as were extended to similarly circumstanced other contractual part time teachers working in higher secondary section in Government aided higher secondary schools in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 3^rd September, 2020 passed on two intra-Court appeals, first one being MAT 1221 of 2019 (State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Anirban Ghosh & Ors.) and the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16^th July, 2024.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that all the petitioners approached a Co-ordinate Bench by instituting separate writ petitions and those were disposed of by a common order dated 13^th December, 2024 thereby directing the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education being respondent no.1 herein to decide the claim of the petitioners. Subsequently, respondent no.1 by passing impugned order dated 21^st February, 2025 decided that the benefits should be confined to the private respondents and/or impleaders and/or intervenors as were referred to in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16^th July, 2024. Since petitioners were neither private respondents nor intervenors and/or impleaders, they were found to be not eligible to receive identical service benefits being contractual part time teachers of higher secondary section by the respondent no.1.

5. In support of the case made out in the writ petitions learned advocate representing the petitioners submits petitioners are similarly circumstanced like private respondents and intervenors/impleaders before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they are entitled to receive similar service benefits of basic pay in the scale of pay of regular teachers working in higher secondary section in Government aided higher secondary schools for the period from 28^th July, 2010 till 24^th December, 2013 when previous Government order dated 28^th July, 2010 was withdrawn.

6. In this regard reliance is placed on the following judgments: (i) (1987) 4 SCC 431 (K.I. Shephard & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) (ii) (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3664 (Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India & Ors.) (iii) (2025) SCC OnLine Cal 4889 (Pampa Dutta Dhar & Ors. vs.

Union of India & Ors.)

7. State respondents are represented by Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, learned Additional Government Pleader and Mr. Suman Dey, learned advocate who have jointly opposed the prayer couched in these writ petitions and submissions are made to defend the decision of the respondent no.1 as contained in order dated 21^st February, 2025. It is submitted that petitioners are fence-sitters and at the material point of time they did not approach the Court. Therefore, o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document