The Calcutta High Court on Friday temporarily restrained the West Bengal government from implementing its proposed monetary relief scheme for non-teaching staff who were dismissed following a Supreme Court judgment.
Supreme Court Order
The Supreme Court had earlier struck down the 2016 recruitment process by the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC), labeling it as “tainted.” As a result, nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff in government-sponsored and aided schools lost their jobs.
In response, the state government launched a scheme offering one-time financial support—₹25,000 for Group C and ₹20,000 for Group D employees—stating it was aimed at providing “limited livelihood, support and social security on humanitarian grounds” for the affected individuals. The scheme was also described as a temporary measure, “subject to orders of any competent court.”
High Court Puts Scheme On Hold
On Friday, Justice Amrita Sinha issued an interim order barring the state from implementing the relief scheme until September 26 or until further order, whichever comes earlier.
“The state government is restrained from giving any effect or further effect to the scheme for providing monetary relief to the non-teaching staff till September 26 or until further order,” said Justice Sinha.
The decision follows a set of petitions challenging the scheme, claiming it undermines the Supreme Court verdict. The High Court had previously reserved its order on these petitions on June 9.
Legal Directions
As part of the interim ruling, Justice Sinha directed the West Bengal government to file its affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, countering the arguments made by the petitioners. The petitioners, in turn, have been given 2 weeks thereafter to submit their reply.
Background Of The Controversy
The controversy began when the apex court invalidated the 2016 recruitment by WBSSC, citing serious irregularities in the selection process. The ruling led to the dismissal of thousands of teaching and non-teaching staff, triggering political and legal debates over accountability and compensation.
The state’s relief plan was seen as an attempt to soften the blow for affected families. However, critics argue that any compensation or support must align with judicial directions and not override the Supreme Court’s mandate.
The matter will now proceed based on further filings and hearings, with the scheme remaining suspended for the time being.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
