WBSSC jobs matter: PIL in Calcutta HC challenges Bengal govt's order on stipend for non-teaching staff
Kolkata: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in Calcutta High Court, challenging the notification issued by the West Bengal government earlier this month on the launch of a new scheme under which the non-teaching staff in state-run schools in the state under Group-C and Group-D categories, losing jobs following a recent order of the Supreme Court, can be provided with a monthly stipend from the state exchequer.
In the PIL, the petitioner has challenged the notification, claiming that spending public exchequer for staff losing jobs following a Supreme Court order was illegal.
As per the notification issued earlier this month, under the proposed scheme under the state labour department christened 'West Bengal Livelihood and Special Security Interim Scheme', the job-losing Group-C staff would be entitled to a monthly stipend of Rs 25,000, while those in the Group D category would be entitled to Rs 20,000 monthly.
Those covered under the scheme will be entitled to receive the monthly stipends with effect from April 1 this year and this payment will continue until any solution as regards the legal hassles regarding their loss of jobs is achieved.
The PIL has been admitted by the Calcutta High Court's division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das and the matter is expected to come up for hearing soon. The matter will come up for hearing after the forthcoming summer vacation recess of the Calcutta High Court.
While announcing the launch of the scheme earlier this month, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had explained that the scheme was planned under the state labour department because of the tendencies of some people and vested interests to file public interest litigations at the Calcutta High Court against any decision of the state government.
However, with the PIL being filed at the Calcutta High Court, the state government's desire to avoid a legal battle over the scheme was not fulfilled. Earlier this month, a similar case challenging the scheme was filed at the single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha, which was also admitted.
On April 3, the Supreme Court upheld a previous order of the Calcutta High Court that annulled 25,753 school appointments made through the WBSSC.
The apex court observed that the panel had to be scrapped entirely due to the authorities' failure to distinguish between "tainted" and "untainted" candidates.
The state government and the WBSSC have since filed review petitions in the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of the order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
How Allahabad High Court's verdict against Indira Gandhi 50 years ago resulted in Emergency
On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli void, sparking a domino effect that led to the imposition of Emergency. Here's how it all happened read more It has been 50 years since a High Court's judgement against India's prime minister changed the country's trajectory. On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha election void, sparking a domino effect that led to the imposition of Emergency a few days later. The verdict caused a political storm and had ramifications for the entire country. But why was Indira Gandhi's election set aside? We take a relook. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Petition against Indira Gandhi In the 1971 Lok Sabha polls, Indira Gandhi, who had floated the Congress (R) — the breakaway faction of the Congress — after being expelled from the parent party in 1969, defeated her opponent Raj Narain by 1,10,000 votes from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. Her party also registered a landslide victory in the elections, winning 352 out of the 518 Lok Sabha seats. Raj Narain, the Samyukta Socialist Party candidate, however, challenged Gandhi's election from Rae Bareli on April 24, 1971. He approached the Allahabad High Court alleging electoral malpractices and misuse of government machinery by the then Prime Minister. Giving no weightage to the petition, people did not anticipate what would come next. The petition was first listed before Justice William Broome, the last British judge of the Allahabad High Court. However, he retired in December 1971 and the petition reached two different benches — one of Justice BN Lokur and of Justice KN Srivastava. Due to their retirements, the petition went before the bench of Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha in early 1975. The verdict that changed India The recording of oral evidence began on February 12, 1975. Several big names appeared as witnesses — PN Haksar, then vice chairman of the Planning Commission, appeared for Gandhi. While LK Advani, the then president of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, former Bihar Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur and Congress-O president S Nijalingappa deposed for Raj Narain. The Prime Minister was also cross-examined for two straight days — a first in the history of independent India. As Gandhi appeared before the court on March 18, 1975, she was given a chair on an elevated platform so she was sitting on the same level as the judge, as per the Indian Express report. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Then-PM Indira Gandhi was cross-examined for two days at the Allahabad High Court. After the arguments concluded, the High Court shut down for summer vacations on May 23, 1975. Now, it was time to wait for Justice Sinha's verdict. Under immense pressure, he is said to have locked himself up at home, with visitors being told that he is in Ujjain to see his elder brother. Justice Vipin Sinha, Justice Sinha's son, recalled the pressure on his family at the time. 'I was in Class 11 then and those days were very hard for us. We got a lot of very abusive calls, so much so that we did not allow our father to answer the phone,' he was quoted as saying by Indian Express. Then came the judgement day. Announcing his ruling on June 12, 1975, in Courtroom No 24 of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Sinha said, 'This petition is allowed and the election of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, Respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha is declared void… (Indira Gandhi) accordingly stands disqualified for a period of six years from the date of this order.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Justice Sinha found Gandhi guilty on two counts — for using a gazetted officer, her personal secretary Yashpal Kapoor, as her election agent, and for employing Uttar Pradesh government officers to arrange rostrums, loudspeakers and barricades for her election speeches. The court ruled in her favour on other charges –– for using choppers of the Indian Air Force to go to Rae Bareli for her election campaigning and file nominations, invoking religion to influence electors and distributing quilts, blankets, dhotis and liquor to get votes, and so on. Justice Sinha's final 258-page ruling meant immediate disqualification for Indira Gandhi as an MP and her dismissal as Prime Minister. However, after her lawyers argued that her removal would create a political vacuum in the country, the court granted a 20-day stay on the verdict. Meanwhile, Gandhi moved the Supreme Court on appeal. The case was heard by a single-judge vacation bench of Justice VR Krishna Iyer. On June 24, 1975, the apex court granted a 'conditional stay' against the Allahabad High Court ruling. While Indira Gandhi could continue as PM, her rights as an MP were restricted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD She could not vote in Parliament, take part in proceedings of the House, or get a salary as an MP until the SC finally decides the appeal. Indira Gandhi imposes Emergency Days after the HC's ruling, Indira Gandhi invoked Article 352 of the Constitution to impose an internal Emergency . This period lasted for 21 months, during which people's fundamental rights were suppressed and dissent curbed across the country. The media were gagged and opposition leaders jailed. Seen as the Constitution's darkest chapter, the Emergency was a real test for the Indian democracy. With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Why Andhra Pradesh & Karnataka are fighting over mangoes
By an order issued by the district collector of Chittoor on June 7, the Andhra Pradesh government has banned the entry of juicy Totapuri mangoes from other states into Chittoor district, a decision that has put it at loggerheads with neighbouring Karnataka. Karnataka Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh, in a letter dated June 10, and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, in a letter dated June 11, have asked their Andhra Pradesh counterparts — K Vijayanand and N Chandrababu Naidu, respectively — to roll back the order said to be causing significant distress to mango farmers in Karnataka. A juicy mango Totapuri, also known as Bangalore or Sandersha, is a mango cultivar grown in the bordering districts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. I have written to Andhra Pradesh CM Shri @ncbn requesting him to withdraw the ban on the entry of Totapuri Mangoes from Karnataka into Chittoor district. This ban hurts thousands of farmers and traders. Cooperation between states is vital for the prosperity of our people. — Siddaramaiah (@siddaramaiah) June 12, 2025 Known for their elongated shape and distinct parrot beak-like tip (hence 'Totapuri'), the variety is valued for its juice and pulp. Totapuri mangoes are used aplenty in mango drinks manufactured and distributed across the country. Food and beverage processors, including multinational companies, buy these mangoes directly from farmers. Notably, Andhra Pradesh's Chittoor district is home to several mango processing and pulp extraction companies that procure Totapuri mangoes from local markets. District officials, with the support of revenue, forest, marketing and police departments, have banned Totapuri mangoes from Karnataka entering Chittoor. The reason: the mangoes from Karnataka are cheaper than ones being grown in Andhra Pradesh. 'Every year, the Andhra government announces the price at which processors should purchase Totapuri mangoes,' an Andhra Pradesh government source told The Indian Express. 'This year the state government has announced the price at Rs 8 per kg. Keeping in mind the low price and high supplies the government has agreed to provide an additional Rs 4 per kg to the farmers,' the source said. In Karnataka, however, the price is just Rs 5 to Rs 6 per kg, the Andhra Pradesh government claims. 'If we allow [Karnataka] mangoes to reach the Andhra Pradesh market, the processors will prefer these mangoes over ones grown in the state, which are priced higher. This will plunge Andhra farmers into distress,' the AP government source said. With 5.5 lakh tones expected to be procured, the government is set to spend around Rs 220 crore on these mangoes An escalating standoff 'This abrupt and unilateral move has caused considerable hardship to mango growers in Karnataka, particularly those in the border regions who cultivate Totapuri mangoes in substantial quantities. These farmers have long relied on robust linkages with Chittoor-based processing and pulp extraction units for marketing their produce,' said Siddaramaiah, adding that the ban 'is contrary to the spirit of cooperative federalism'. He further said: 'The current restriction has disrupted this well-established supply chain and threatens significant post-harvest losses, directly impacting the livelihoods of thousands of farmers'. Chief Secretary Rajneesh's letter echoed similar concerns. Notably, both letters said that Karnataka farmers may take retaliatory measures, including blocking of vegetable and other agricultural commodities' sales across the border from Andhra Pradesh to Karnataka, which would 'escalate inter-state tensions,' Rajneesh wrote. This standoff comes in the context of the two neighbouring states being ruled by parties sitting across the aisle in Parliament: while the Congress is in power in Karnataka, the Andhra Pradesh government is headed by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), a key ally in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance at the Centre. So far, the Andhra Pradesh government has not officially responded to the letters from Karnataka.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Cash row: Congress seeks SC report on allegations against Justice Varma
The Congress has asked the government to share with it the report of a Supreme Court-appointed committee that probed graft allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of his impeachment before the Monsoon session of Parliament, party sources said on Thursday. The government, however, is yet to respond, the sources said. Several burnt sacks containing cash were allegedly discovered at Justice Varma's residence in Delhi after a fire broke out there in March, when he was a Delhi High Court judge. Though the judge, who was later transferred to the Allahabad High Court, has claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has initiated discussions with all political parties to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Varma in Parliament's Monsoon session, starting from July 21. The Congress sources said the party has asked Rijiju to share the report of the committee so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of impeachment. The minister is yet to get back to the Congress, they said. Last week, Rijiju underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving the impeachment motion against Justice Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". He said the government wants the exercise to be a "collaborative effort". According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Rijiju, however, has said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said earlier. The minister had said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. Following the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry, former CJI Sanjeev Khanna is believed to have prodded Varma to resign but he dug in his heels. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Former CJI Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
