Safiya Malik

The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Amrita Sinha has passed an interim order restraining the State Government from giving any effect to the "West Bengal Livelihood Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025" until 26th September, 2025 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. The court took this step after holding that a prima facie case had been made out by the petitioners challenging the scheme. The scheme, introduced by the State, aimed to provide monthly financial assistance to non-teaching staff in Group C and Group D categories who were terminated following a Supreme Court judgment.

The court directed the respondents to file their affidavits within four weeks, with liberty to the petitioners to file a reply within two weeks thereafter. The court observed that any payments made under the scheme, if ultimately found unsustainable, would amount to unjust enrichment of tainted candidates and create irreparable loss to the public exchequer. The judgment does not invalidate the scheme but imposes a temporary halt on its implementation until the matter is further adjudicated.

Also Read: "No Individual Should Be Forcibly Subjected to Narco-Analysis": Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Directive, Affirms Voluntariness and Safeguards as Prerequisites

The case concerns the "West Bengal Livelihood Social Security Interim Scheme, 2025," introduced via Notification No. Labr-58/2025/(LC-LW/MW) dated 15th May, 2025, by the Department of Labour, Government of West Bengal. The scheme proposes monthly cash assistance of Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 20,000 respectively to Group C and Group D non-teaching staff affected by a Supreme Court judgement.

The petitioners in WPA 11520 of 2025, WPA 12010 of 2025, and WPA 12011 of 2025 challenged the scheme, arguing that it seeks to overreach judicial decisions. These petitioners were wait-listed candidates from the same 2016 recruitment process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission. Their names were included in the waiting list, but they were never issued appointment letters.

The appointments made under the 2016 process were declared null and void by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 22nd April, 2024, citing violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2025 (State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya & Ors.), affirmed this judgment on 3rd April, 2025, ordering termination of service of the tainted candidates and refund of any payments made to them.

A miscellaneous application filed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in Civil Appeal No. 4805 of 2025 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17th April, 2025. The court declined to allow the terminated Group C and Group D non-teaching staff to resume work or receive salary.

Despite the finality of the judgments, the State of West Bengal introduced the Livelihood Scheme as interim relief to the families of the affected employees. The scheme justifies this action on humanitarian grounds, citing Article 21 and Article 41 of the Constitution. It also refers to the pendency of review petitions before the Supreme Court and establishes a Screening Committee to determine eligibility.

The petitioners contended that the scheme is unconstitutional as it defies judicial orders and rewards candidates whose appointments were cancelled due to fraud. They asserted that public funds must not be diverted to individuals whose services were terminated for illegality. They relied on Supreme Court decisions, including NHPC Limited vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Secretary & Ors. (2023) 17 SCC 1, and Rupak Chanda & Ors. vs. Babita Sarkar & Ors., where the Court refused to entertain clarificatory applications regarding the 3rd April, 2025 judgment.

The State argued that the petitioners had no locus standi as they were wait-listed and not directly affected. It stated that the scheme is a welfare measure not in violation of any court order, and any action taken is subject to the outcome of pending review petitions. It cited judgments in Union of India vs. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd. (1999) 5 SCC 773 and Ms. Mayawati vs. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 106, urging the court not to entertain parallel proceedings.

The court recorded: "Whether it is proper for the State to create a class of favoured candidates out of a bigger class of unemployed jobless candidates, is a matter to be decided after hearing both the parties."

On the issue of locus standi, the court stated: "Giving out financial benefit to a particular set of jobless persons depriving the other, appears to be discriminatory. The State certainly has the legislative competency and can always formulate welfare measures but the same has to be applied equally without adopting a pick and choose method."

Referring to the financial implications, the court recorded: "It is obvious that these persons are not very financially stable and will not be in a position to return the money if the Court ultimately declares the Scheme as bad in law. The same will amount to unjust enrichment of certain persons on the strength of the money to be paid from the coffers of the State."

Regarding judicial finality, the court observed: "Once the highest Court of the land has decided the issue of illegal appointment conclusively and opined that the appointments were result of fraud, no person who was the beneficiary of a fraudulent act of the statutory authority ought to be provided any support, that too, from the public exchequer."

On the pending review, the court remarked: "Mere filing of a review petition will not tantamount to continuation of the proceeding which stood finally and conclusively decided by the Court by passing judgment on 3rd April, 2025."

The court further clarified: "If it is the specific stand of the State that the review application is pending, then the State ought to have taken leave of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to give effect to the impugned Scheme."

Addressing the plea of contempt jurisdiction, the court stated: "Here, the petitioners do not allege violation of the Court’s order. The petitioners challenge the Scheme which is a consequential step taken by the State after order is passed by the Court."

Also Read: Timelines Prescribed Under The Rules Are Not Ornamental | Orissa High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To Conclude Nine-Year-Old MSG Case In One Month And Imposes Cost For Delay

The court issued the following directions: "The respondents are, accordingly, directed to file affidavit in opposition within a period of four weeks; reply if any, within a fortnight thereafter. Liberty to mention the matter for hearing on conclusion of the aforesaid time period."

As to interim relief, the court ordered: "As an interim measure, the State is restrained from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned Scheme till 26th September, 2025 or until further order, whichever is earlier."

On the scope of the order, the court clarified: "It is made clear that the observations made herein above are tentative, only for the purpose of deciding the prayer for interim order and the Court need not be influenced by the same at the time of final disposal of the writ petition."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Baibhav Roy, Adv., Mr. Arindam Sit, Adv.; Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv., Ms. Gopa Biswas, Adv., Ms. Payel Shome, Adv., Ms. Swati Dey, Adv., Mr. Saikat Mallick, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. AG, Mr. Somnath Ganguly, AGP, Ms. Pratiti Das, Adv., Mr. Debanjan Mondal, Adv., Mr. Sandip Dasgupta, Adv., Ms. Mahima Cholera, Adv., Mr. Deepan Sarkar, Adv., Ms. Deepti Priya, Adv., Mr. Swapan Banerjee, AGP, Ms. Sumita Shaw, Adv., Mr. Diptendu Narayan Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv.

Case Title: Prokash Mandal & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Number: WPA 11520 of 2025 (with WPA 12010 and 12011 of 2025)

Bench: Justice Amrita Sinha