Debasis Patra vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Affidavit of service filed shows the respondents have been served but State is not represented.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits, his client was appointed as Field and Laboratory Attendant, purely temporary basis on 26.06.1997. Since then he has been working whole time as such without interruption. He refers to Memorandum dated 23rd May, 2009 to submit that his client came under category ''A'' and therefore, was entitled to pay band scale of Rs.4,900/--16,200/- (PB-I) with grade pay of Rs.1,700/- plus allowance as admissible to whole time Government employees. He relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others versus Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in particular to paragraph 57 therein. It is sufficient to extract from the said paragraph the following:- "57.........The principle of "equal pay for equal work" has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees has been summarised by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us yet again."

He submits, his client had made representation dated 3rd October, 2017 claiming the said pay band scale as well as regularization. He prays for orders being made to that effect. He submits further, his client has come to know that the college by letter reference no.70 dated 1st March, 2011 has informed the respondent no.2 about the indispensability of his client in the matter of the requirement of discharge of his client''s duties in the college.

Ms. Maiti, learned advocate appears on behalf of the College and submits, the Memorandum is not applicable to the petitioner who had been appointed purely on temporary basis. Her client, being a private college, does not get contingency fund grant. So far as the claim for regularization is concerned, she submits, that has to be looked into by the Director of Public Instruction being the respondent no.2. She points out the representation was made on 3rd October, 2017 and this writ petition has been filed soon thereafter in the same month.

It is true that the petitioner has rushed to Court. However, in view of there being claims for consideration, the respondent no.2 is directed to consider the said representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. The decision on the claims should also be made known to the petitioner within that time including benefits, if any, be given if he is found entitled. The said respondent might call for a hearing, if necessary.

The petitioner will obtain a copy of this order and along with other relevant documents serve the same and a copy of the said representation upon the respondent no.2. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings.