No allowance for sacked group C & D staff, Calcutta HC stays Bengal govt's decision

In a significant development, the Calcutta High Court today issued an interim stay on the West Bengal government's decision to provide allowances to sacked Group C and Group D employees. Justice Amrita Sinha ruled that the state cannot disburse the allowances until September 26 or further orders from the court. The ruling delivers a blow to the state government's recent initiative to provide financial relief to the terminated employees.

The court has directed the state government to submit an affidavit within four weeks. The petitioners, in turn, will have 15 days to file their counter-affidavit after the state's submission. This legal back-and-forth is expected to clarify the justifications behind the state's allowance scheme and the challenges to its legality.

Approximately 26,000 individuals, including Group C and Group D staff from the 2016 SSC panel, had their jobs cancelled by a Supreme Court order. Following this, in May, the state government decided to provide a monthly allowance of ₹25,000 to sacked Group C employees and ₹20,000 to Group D employees. This decision, aimed at alleviating the financial hardship of those who lost their jobs, quickly drew legal scrutiny.

A petition was filed in the High Court challenging the state's allowance scheme. The petitioners' lawyer argued in court that the decision to grant allowances to the dismissed Group C and Group D employees was contrary to the Supreme Court's verdict. This argument forms the core of the legal challenge against the state's move.

During the hearing, Justice Amrita Sinha had questioned the rationale behind the allowance amounts. She asked, "Why are the amounts ₹25,000 and ₹20,000? On what basis was this figure determined?" The judge also questioned why the state had taken such a swift decision to grant allowances without any discussion or scrutiny following the Supreme Court's ruling.

In response, the state's Advocate General (AG) Kishore Dutta challenged the maintainability of the petition. However, the petitioners' lawyer countered, stating, "The state cannot decide who will file a case." The arguments from both sides highlighted the contentious nature of the state's policy and its legal implications.