Kolkata, June 3 Another petition was filed at the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday challenging the West Bengal government notification for a monthly stipend to be paid to non-teaching staff, under Group-C and Group-D categories, who lost their jobs in state-run schools in the state following a Supreme Court order.
In the petition, the petitioners challenged the notification, claiming that spending public exchequer for staff losing jobs following a Supreme Court order was illegal.
The petition has been admitted and will come up for hearing at any vacation bench on June 9.
This is the third petition filed in the same matter at the Calcutta High Court. On May 26, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed and admitted by a division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das. The hearing on the PIL is supposed to happen only after the regular functioning of the High Court resumes after the ongoing summer vacation.
Earlier in May, a similar case challenging the payout was filed and admitted by a single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha.
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 that 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, with three successive petitions being filed at the Calcutta High Court, the state government's desire to avoid a legal battle over the scheme was not fulfilled.
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