The scheme provides Rs. 25,000 to Group C and Rs. 20,000 to Group D employees as temporary relief “on humanitarian ground” and “subject to orders of any competent court.”
Kolkata, June 9 – The Calcutta High Court on Monday reserved its judgment on a petition filed against the West Bengal government’s financial aid scheme meant for non-teaching staff who lost their jobs after the Supreme Court cancelled their appointments in connection with the tainted 2016 WBSSC recruitment process.
The petition challenges the state’s decision to pay Rs.25,000 to Group C and Rs.20,000 to Group D employees as a one-time relief under a scheme introduced for those who were affected by the apex court’s order. Justice Amrita Sinha heard the matter and has reserved her decision.
The West Bengal government had rolled out a scheme offering “limited livelihood, support and social security on humanitarian ground”, especially for those in Group C and D categories who were recruited through the 2016 selection process conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC).
The relief was said to be temporary and “subject to orders of any competent court.”
Following the Supreme Court’s judgment that found the 2016 recruitment process flawed, nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff in government and government-aided schools in West Bengal were dismissed from service.
The petition was moved by candidates who had been waitlisted during the 2016 recruitment process. Representing them, senior advocate Bikash Bhattacharya raised several legal objections against the scheme.
He questioned the legal authority of the state government to introduce such a scheme after the Supreme Court’s clear verdict.
Bhattacharya argued: “From where does the state derive powers to make laws to unsettle a Supreme Court judgment or that of a high court?”
He further said the scheme goes against the ruling of the apex court and therefore is unconstitutional.
Referring to Article 162 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the scope of executive powers of a state, Bhattacharya pointed out that the article is “subject to the provisions of the Constitution, by which the legislature has the power to make laws.”
He emphasised that “Article 162 does not empower the state to make a scheme to frustrate a judgment of the Supreme Court.”
On this basis, he urged the High Court to intervene and prayed for a stay on the scheme.
On being asked by the court whether the scheme had already been implemented, Advocate General Kishore Dutta, representing the West Bengal government, confirmed: “It has been done and one instalment had already been released.”
After this, Justice Sinha verbally instructed the state “not to distribute the money at present”, although no formal stay was issued.
In defence of the scheme, Dutta argued that the petitioners, being waitlisted candidates, were not directly affected by this scheme and therefore had no grounds to object.
He stated, “The waitlisted candidates, who are the petitioners, cannot have any grievance in this scheme.”
Moreover, Dutta suggested that the petitioners were raising a constitutional issue that questions a Supreme Court ruling and therefore, “the petitioners should approach the Supreme Court since they claim that the scheme in question violates the order of the apex court.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
