Kolkata, June 20 A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court will deliver the order on Friday on a petition challenging the West Bengal government notification for a monthly stipend to non-teaching staff, under Group-C and Group-D categories, who lost their jobs in state-run schools following a Supreme Court order in April.
The hearing in the matter was concluded at Justice Amrita Sinha's single-judge bench last week.
On June 9, Justice Sinha gave a verbal direction to the state government not to begin paying money to the non-teaching staff until the order in the matter was passed.
She questioned the basis on which the state government decided to pay the stipend to the non-teaching staff who lost jobs after the Supreme Court order, and also the calculation of the stipend amounts to be paid. At the same time, she also questioned whether there had been instances in the past when the state government paid stipends to its job-losing employees.
She also questioned what the state government would get in return from those job-losing non-teaching staff against the stipend paid to them.
Last month, the West Bengal government issued a notification announcing the new scheme under the state Labour Department. Under the "West Bengal Livelihood and Special Security Interim Scheme”, the job-losing Group-C staff would be entitled to a monthly stipend of Rs 25,000, while those in the Group D category would be entitled to Rs 20,000 monthly.
Announcing the launch of the scheme, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said the scheme was planned under the state Labour Department because of the tendencies of some people and vested interests to file public interest litigations at the Calcutta High Court against any decision of the state government.
However, legal challenges could not be avoided following successive petitions filed against the said notification.
On April 3, the Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court order that annulled 25,753 school appointments made through the WBSSC, observing that the panel had to be scrapped entirely due to the authorities' failure to distinguish between "tainted" and "untainted" candidates.
The state government and the WBSSC have since filed review petitions in the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of the order.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor