Jay Sengupta, J
This is an application inter alia, praying for direction upon the respondent authorities for payment of regular as well as arrear honorarium, in view of
the engagement of the petitioner as Sahayika of Jiyagachi Sishu Siksha Kendra, Jiyagachi Dhangra, Chanchal II, District Malda with effect from June
26, 2010 and for direction to allow the petitioner to rejoin the post of 4th Sahayika at the said Sishu Siksha Kendra (hereinafter, referred to as
“SSKâ€).
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits as follows. The Managing Committee of the S.S.K. initiated a process for appointment of
Sahayika on February 22, 2010. On February 30, 20-10, the Managing Committee requested the BDO to give permission for the same. On April 12,
2010, the BDO granted permission. Accordingly, the petitioner and others participated in the interview process. In fact, the petitioner obtained a high
rank in the panel for appointment for the post of Sahayika. The panel was published on April 28, 2010. Thereafter, the Sthayee Samity of the
Panchayat Samity sanctioned the same on May 4, 2010. On June 26, 2010, the Managing Committee of the S.S.K. executed an agreement and the
petitioner was appointed to the post of Sahayika. Since then, she has been rendering service. But, she did not receive a penny for the same. Later on,
she was told that due to the pendency of a writ petition challenging such appointment, the honorarium could not be paid. The writ petition was filed by
another person, but the same was dismissed for default. All these prompted the petitioner to approach this Court, although she had made
representations earlier in the years 2010, 2012 and 2024. The contention of the respondent authorities that a new policy for engagement of Sahayikas
came into operation on April 23, 2010 is of no consequence as the process for selection of the petitioner was initiated much before. The initiation was
done by the Managing Committee of the S.S.K. and due permission was granted by the BDO. By the time, a new policy came, interview of the
petitioner had already taken place.
Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records and affidavits filed by the respective parties.
The issue of pendency of another writ petition cannot come in the way of payment of honorarium to the petitioner anymore because the said writ
petition has admittedly been dismissed. Even an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner has been dismissed.
So far as the issue of a new policy of the State Government for appointment of Sahayika coming in from the year of 2010 is concerned, it is an
admitted position that the same was much after the initiation of process for appointment of the present petitioner. While a new policy came on April
23, 2010, the Managing Committee of the concerned S.S.K. had initiated the process for appointment on February 22, 2010. Upon their requests, the
concerned BDO had given necessary permission on April 12, 2010. Thereafter, the selection process was undertaken including the interview.
Therefore, the subsequent promulgation of a new policy would not affect the appointment of the petitioner as Sahayika following due norms as
contained in the earlier policy that existed at the relevant time.
In view of the above, the respondent authority would allow the petitioner to rejoin the S.S.K. as a Sahayika and continue with the engagement as per
agreed terms. The payment of honorarium to the petitioner shall commence from the date of rejoining. For the earlier period for which the petitioner
had rendered service in such capacity at the S.S.K., necessary arrears of the honorarium shall be paid by the respondent authorities at the earliest.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.