What is the Calcutta HC's Stance on the WBSSC Job Case Stipend for Non-Teaching Staff?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has concluded hearings on a petition challenging the West Bengal government's stipend for non-teaching staff in state-run schools. The case raises critical questions about the allocation of public funds and the implications for those affected by job losses. Stay tuned as we reveal the court's anticipated verdict.
Key Takeaways
- Calcutta High Court has reserved its judgment on the stipend issue.
- The stipend supports non-teaching staff who lost jobs due to a Supreme Court ruling.
- Group-C staff receive Rs 25,000 monthly; Group-D staff receive Rs 20,000.
- Concerns over the use of public funds have been raised in court.
- Legal challenges continue to complicate the state's stipend scheme.
Kolkata, June 13 (NationPress) The Calcutta High Court wrapped up hearings on a petition contesting the West Bengal government's notification that allocates a monthly stipend to non-teaching personnel categorized under Group-C and Group-D. This stipend is intended for those who faced job losses in state-run schools due to a Supreme Court ruling, and the verdict is now reserved.
During the proceedings, both the petitioners' and the state government's representatives presented their final arguments before Justice Amrita Sinha, who subsequently reserved her judgment.
The state government’s attorney challenged the petitioners' motives, questioning why they would oppose financial support for non-teaching staff who lost their jobs. In response, the petitioner's counsel asserted that because the stipend is derived from the public treasury, it is reasonable for anyone to demand transparency regarding its allocation.
In a prior hearing on June 9, Justice Sinha scrutinized the calculations employed in determining the stipend amounts for both Group-C and Group-D employees.
Justice Sinha also inquired whether there had been previous instances where the state government provided stipends to state employees who lost their jobs. Furthermore, she asked what benefits the government anticipates receiving from the non-teaching staff in exchange for the stipends.
Last month, the West Bengal government announced a new initiative through the state Labour Department. Under the "West Bengal Livelihood and Special Security Interim Scheme," Group-C staff who are jobless will receive a monthly stipend of Rs 25,000, while Group-D employees will get Rs 20,000 monthly.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee stated that this scheme was established due to the tendency of certain individuals and vested interests to file public interest litigations against any state government decisions at the Calcutta High Court.
Despite this, the state government’s aim to avoid litigation regarding the scheme has not been realized, with three petitions already submitted to the Calcutta High Court.
On April 3, the Supreme Court upheld a Calcutta High Court decision that invalidated 25,753 school appointments made through the WBSSC, citing the need to entirely dissolve the panel due to the authorities' failure to differentiate between "tainted" and "untainted" candidates.
In response, both the state government and the WBSSC have filed review petitions in the Supreme Court, seeking a reassessment of the ruling.
Point of View
I believe that this ongoing case reflects broader issues of accountability and transparency within our government systems. The court's eventual ruling will not only impact those individuals directly involved but will also set a precedent for how public funds are managed in future employment matters.
NationPress
14/06/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the purpose of the stipend for non-teaching staff?
The stipend aims to support non-teaching staff who lost their jobs in state-run schools due to a Supreme Court order.
What are the amounts for the Group-C and Group-D stipends?
Group-C staff are entitled to a monthly stipend of Rs 25,000, while Group-D staff will receive Rs 20,000.
Why was the stipend challenged in court?
The challenge stems from concerns regarding the allocation of public funds and the justification for such financial support.
What was the Supreme Court's ruling on school appointments?
The Supreme Court upheld a decision to annul 25,753 school appointments due to issues with candidate selection processes.
How has the state government responded to the legal challenges?
The state government, along with the WBSSC, has filed review petitions seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court's ruling.
