Calcutta High Court Upholds Group-D Status For Polytechnic Hostel Workers, Refuses State's Challenge Against Regularisation Benefits

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the State of West Bengal and the Director of Technical Education and Training challenging orders that granted permanent government employee status and full Group-D service benefits to hostel/mess employees working in Government and Sponsored Polytechnics.

A Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the issue is no longer res integra, observing that earlier Division Bench rulings extending similar benefits had already been affirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore there was no justification to reopen the controversy.

The writ petitioners had approached the Single Judge seeking recognition as permanent government employees with pay scale, allowances, service continuity, pensionary and superannuation benefits, contending that they had been rendering continuous service in polytechnic hostels for years. The Single Judge directed the authorities to treat them as Group-D staff and release all consequential benefits from their respective dates of appointment.

Challenging the orders, the State argued that the writ petitioners were engaged by Hostel/Mess Committees and not directly by the Government, and therefore no master-servant relationship existed with the Institutes. It was further submitted that running a canteen or mess was not a statutory obligation and that an internal note-sheet relied upon by the employees had no statutory force. The State also contended that there were conflicting Division Bench decisions and sought reference to a larger Bench.

Rejecting these submissions, the Bench noted that the very question had already been examined in earlier cases including Director of Technical Education and Training v. Chunilal Chakraborty and Madan Mohan Sarkar, where similar hostel/mess workers were granted Group-D status. Those decisions had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs.

The Court observed that the earlier Special Bench had also considered the State's policy decision conferring service benefits on hostel/mess employees of aided institutions and held that nothing further remained for adjudication.

Emphasising judicial discipline, the Bench underlined the importance of consistency in precedents, stating that:

“Doctrine of precedents and stare decisis are the core values of legal system… It is only when there is an irreconcilable conflict that a reference to a larger Bench may be made.”

It added that no compelling or strong reason existed to depart from the settled view.

The Court further clarified the scope of appellate review, observing that:

“An appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong.”

Finding that the Single Judge had rightly followed binding precedents and treated the petitioners on the same footing as similarly placed employees who had already received benefits, the Bench held that no infirmity or perversity was made out.

Accordingly, all the appeals and connected applications were dismissed, thereby affirming the employees' entitlement to regularisation and full Group-D government service benefits.

Case: The Director of Technical Education and Training Versus Lila Lohar & Ors.

Case No: MAT 572 of 2025

Click here to read order