Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dushmanta Banerjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 July, 2018
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1
July 31, 2018
50 ARDR
WP 9455 (W) of 2018
Dushmanta Banerjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Debjani Sengupta,
Ms. Tiyssa Banerjee,
...for the petitioner.
This is a case instituted virtually for 'equal pay for equal work'.
The writ petitioner submits that he has been working as an Accountant
in the Calcutta Blind School under the department of Mass Education and that
those similarly situated in such special schools and working as an accountant
have obtained the benefit of scale of pay which has been denied to the petitioner.
While it is true that in case of other respondents this required recourse to the
Writ Court, an order for considering their representations and ultimately allowing their claims on the ground that they were similarly situated as the accountant obtaining the benefit of that scale of pay in the Helen Keller Bodhir Vidyalaya, I do not think that any useful purpose will be served by merely directing that the representation at page 70 of the present petition be considered and disposed of without a further direction being added.
Therefore, I direct that the representation at page 70 of the writ petition be considered and disposed of the respondent no.2 by a speaking order after giving due opportunity of being heard to all concerned with only one caveat that in case it is found that the writ petitioner is similarly situated with any other person working as an accountant in any other institution which is a special school under the department of Mass Education, in such case the reasoned order shall be in the nature of granting of the claim of the writ petitioner and logical conclusion shall be given to such decision within forty-eight hours from the date that such decision is taken. The process of considering and disposing must be 2 done expeditiously, but no later than four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The communication of the decision shall be made within seven days from the date taking such decision and logical conclusion thereto shall be given within forty-eight hours from communication of the decision as aforesaid.
Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the State respondents.
Because I have kept consideration of the most material fact, id. est. whether the writ petitioner is similarly circumstanced as the other person who have got the benefit open, I do not think there is necessity to keep the matter lingering for the formal appearance of the State.
The writ petition is allowed, as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.)