The Calcutta High Court has asked the Mamata Banerjee-led West Bengal government not to dole out monetary aid till September 26 to non-teaching school staff who were sacked, following the top court's order. The Calcutta High Court rejected the guidelines for providing allowances to the out-of-job Group-C and Group-D workers, following a petition by candidates on the 2016 recruitment waiting list.
Issuing an interim stay on the Bengal government's decision to grant aid, Justice Amrita Sinha said the state cannot provide allowances to Group-C and Group-D workers. The stay will remain in effect until September 26.
The petitioners argued that providing ₹25,000 and ₹20,000 allowances to those dismissed for irregularities, despite the Supreme Court's verdict, was equivalent to rewarding corruption, reported news agency IANS.
Setback For Mamata Banerjee, But Relief To Treasury
The court's ruling is seen by many as a setback for the Mamata Banerjee-led administration. However, some believe the order temporarily relieves the state of a financial burden amounting to several crores.
The court's intervention not only halts the allowances but also brings all related matters concerning the sacked employees under judicial scrutiny. This may allow the state government to frame its stance as a conflict between good intent and legal constraints — a narrative it could potentially use ahead of the upcoming assembly elections next year.
What Was The Bengal Job 'Scam'?
The issue stems from a Supreme Court order cancelling the appointments of nearly 26,000 candidates from the 2016 SSC panel, including Group-C and Group-D staff. The order came in the wake of an investigation that laid bare an alleged cash-for-jobs scam.
In May, the state government had announced monthly aid of ₹25,000 for out-of-job Group-C workers and ₹20,000 for Group-D workers.
This decision was challenged in the Calcutta High Court, with petitioners arguing that the aid contradicted the Supreme Court's verdict. During a previous hearing, Justice Sinha questioned the basis of the proposed amounts, asking, "Why ₹25,000 and ₹20,000? On what grounds were these figures determined?" She also sought clarity on why the decision was taken hastily without proper deliberation or scrutiny after the apex court's ruling.
Meanwhile, the state's Advocate General Kishore Dutta raised concerns over the maintainability of the case. In response, the petitioners' counsel asserted that the state cannot dictate who has the right to file a legal petition.
Though the final hearing was completed last Friday, Justice Sinha had reserved her verdict, which she delivered on June 20.