MUKTARA BIBI (KHATUN) Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application inter alia, praying for direction upon the respondent authorities for payment of regular as well as arrear honorarium, in view of the engagement of the petitioner as Sahayika of Jiyagachi Sishu Siksha Kendra, Jiyagachi Dhangra, Chanchal II, District Malda with effect from June 26, 2010 and for direction to allow the petitioner to rejoin the post of 4th Sahayika at the said Sishu Siksha Kendra (hereinafter, referred to as "SSK").

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. The Managing Committee of the S.S.K. initiated a process for appointment of Sahayika on February 22, 2010. On February 30, 20-10, the Managing Committee requested the BDO to give permission for the same. On April 12, 2010, the BDO granted permission. Accordingly, the petitioner and others participated in the interview process. In fact, the petitioner obtained a high rank in the panel for appointment for the post of Sahayika. The panel was published on April 28, 2010. Thereafter, the Sthayee Samity of the Panchayat Samity sanctioned the same on May 4, 2010. On June 26, 2010, the Managing Committee of the S.S.K. executed an agreement and the petitioner was appointed to the post of Sahayika. Since then, she has been rendering service. But, she did not receive a penny for the same. Later on, she was told that due to the pendency of a writ petition challenging such appointment, the honorarium could not be paid. The writ petition was filed by another person, but the same was dismissed for default. All these prompted the petitioner to approach this Court, although she had made representations earlier in the years 2010, 2012 and 2024. The contention of the respondent authorities that a new policy for engagement of Sahayikas came into operation on April 23, 2010 is of no consequence as the process for selection of the petitioner was initiated much before. The initiation was done by the Managing Committee of the S.S.K. and due permission was granted by the BDO. By the time, a new policy came, interview of the petitioner had already taken place. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records and affidavits filed by the respective parties.

(3.) The issue of pendency of another writ petition cannot come in the way of payment of honorarium to the petitioner anymore because the said writ petition has admittedly been dismissed. Even an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner has been dismissed.