Similarly situated computer instructors cannot be denied service benefits solely for marginally later appointment.

The petitioners were appointed as computer instructors in Bhawani High School and Nandanpur High School, Jalpaiguri, respectively, both Government-sponsored schools.

Their appointments followed vacancies caused by the resignations of the incumbent instructors, and they joined on 4 January 2021 through Extra Marks Education India Pvt. Ltd., described as an approved agency of the School Education Department.

A Government notification dated 16 October 2020 revised the service conditions and benefits applicable to contractually engaged IT personnel, including computer instructors engaged through agencies.

The petitioners’ names subsequently appeared in the approved list of 181 ICT instructors issued in September 2021.

Their remuneration was nevertheless stopped on the ground that their dates of joining were after the 16 October 2020 notification.

The State did not dispute that the petitioners continued to work as computer instructors.

The petitions sought release of arrear salary from 1 May 2025 with applicable interest and extension of the benefits under the notification.

Whether the petitioners, despite joining marginally after the Government notification dated 16 October 2020, were entitled to the benefits extended to similarly situated computer instructors.

Whether the competent administrative authority was required to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement by passing a reasoned order, including in relation to their remuneration and consequential benefits.

The Court applied the administrative-law principles of equal treatment of similarly situated employees, non-arbitrary implementation of Government policies, and the requirement that a competent authority decide a pending claim by an informed and reasoned order.

It relied on the Government’s memo dated 16 October 2020, which revised the service conditions of contractually engaged IT personnel working through WEBEL, WTL, departmental arrangements, or other agencies.

It also relied on the subsequent Government communications approving ICT instructors, including the memo dated 29 September 2021 that included the petitioners in the approved list.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioners continued to discharge the same functions as other computer instructors who had received the benefits of the 16 October 2020 notification.

Their inclusion in the approved list of ICT instructors demonstrated that the respondents had themselves treated them as eligible instructors, while the only basis for denying the benefits was that their appointment dates fell marginally after the notification.

Given their continued service and their role in the State’s e-Governance initiatives, the Court considered the petitioners to be similarly situated with the instructors who had received the benefits.

It therefore held that their claim required reconsideration by the Administrative Officer and ex-officio Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, West Bengal, through a reasoned decision.

Instead, it directed the Administrative Officer and ex-officio Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, West Bengal, before whom the matter was pending pursuant to the District Inspector’s memo dated 24 September 2025, to take an informed decision by passing a reasoned order and to extend the benefits of the 16 October 2020 notification to the petitioners.

All consequential benefits were directed to follow, and both writ petitions were disposed of.