Individual representations for overtime benefits must be decided by a reasoned order, without adjudicating entitlement.

The petition was filed by 174 petitioners, who claimed to be similarly placed Sub-Assistant Engineers working under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation at the Indira Gandhi Water Treatment Plant and various water-generation, boosting and drainage-pumping stations.

They contended that, owing to the nature of their duties, they were required to work beyond eight hours per day and were therefore entitled to overtime wages and holiday allowance under the applicable KMC circulars and the Factories Act, 1948.

The petitioners relied on Sumit Paul v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation, WPA 11677 of 2017, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench held that KMC Circular No. 35 of 2011–12 did not supersede the earlier circulars dated 8 December 2008 and 8 June 2009, and that eligible employees were entitled to benefits under those circulars.

The decision in Sumit Paul was affirmed in appeal, MAT 1636 of 2022, on 27 September 2024, and the Special Leave Petition challenging it was dismissed on 20 January 2025.

However, the present petitioners had not annexed their individual representations or disclosed the particulars necessary to establish their entitlement.

Whether the petitioners, claiming to be similarly situated to the employees in Sumit Paul, were entitled to overtime and holiday allowance under the applicable KMC circulars and the Factories Act, 1948.

Whether the Court could grant relief without the petitioners first submitting individual representations containing particulars of their respective claims.

Whether the Municipal Commissioner should be directed to consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the decisions in Sumit Paul and the connected appellate proceedings.

The Court considered the service conditions applicable under the relevant KMC circulars and the Factories Act, 1948, including the petitioners’ claim to overtime wages for work beyond prescribed working hours.

It relied principally on the ruling in Sumit Paul & Ors. v. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., WPA 11677 of 2017, which held that KMC Circular No. 35 of 2011–12 did not override the earlier circulars dated 8 December 2008 and 8 June 2009, and that eligible employees were entitled to the benefits provided under those circulars.

The appellate judgment in MAT 1636 of 2022 and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition affirmed the continuing relevance of that legal position.

However, entitlement remained dependent on consideration of each employee’s individual facts and particulars.

Although the petitioners asserted that they were similarly situated to the employees in Sumit Paul, they had not placed their individual representations or the necessary particulars of their claims before the Court.

The Court therefore declined to determine their substantive entitlement directly.

Instead, balancing the procedural deficiency against the possibility that the petitioners might otherwise suffer prejudice, it permitted each petitioner to submit an individual representation setting out the relevant particulars and claiming the benefits recognised in Sumit Paul.

The Municipal Commissioner was directed to decide those representations in accordance with law and with due regard to the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench and the Division Bench.

Each petitioner was permitted to file an appropriate individual representation before the Municipal Commissioner, Kolkata Municipal Corporation, within one month from the date of the order.

The Municipal Commissioner was directed to pass a reasoned order on each representation within twelve weeks of its filing, having regard to the decisions in Sumit Paul and the appellate judgment.

All consequential reliefs were left to follow from the orders of the Municipal Commissioner, and the Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the petitioners’ entitlement to overtime or holiday allowance.