Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) This appeal arises from a judgement dated July 19, 2016 passed by a Learned Single of this Court in W.P. 5091 (W) of 1996. By that judgement, the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated August 19, 2015 passed by the Director of Library Services, of the State of West Bengal. By that order, the Director of Library Services, who is the Appellant No.2 in this appeal, had rejected the writ petitioners' plea for higher pay for higher qualification. The Learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition by the impugned judgement had further directed the grant of higher scale of pay to the writ petitioner in terms of the Government Order dated March 7, 1990 within a stated time. When the writ petition was filed in 2016, the Government Order dated March 7, 1990 had ceased to exist, and the benefit granted by it was no longer available and in fact it had not existed in that form or for that benefit and had not been available since July 21, 1990. Being aggrieved, the State of West Bengal and its authorities who were the respondents in the said writ petition, have preferred the present appeal.
(2.) This appeal was heard analogously with MAT No. 36 of 2001 [Pradip Kumar Karak and Others-v-The State of West Bengal and Others]. The same set of Learned Advocates appeared for the respective writ petitioners and the State of West Bengal and its authorities in both the matters. Both the Appellants and the Respondents submitted jointly that the basis of the claim of the writ petitioners in both the cases was the same, and that common questions of law and fact arose in both the appeals. They prayed that the appeals be heard analogously. That is why this Court directed that the appeals be heard analogously.
(3.) After hearing the two matters together, I, however, proposed to pass separate orders in the two appeals for the reasons which will become clear from what follows. The basis of the claim of the writ petitioners-who were the Appellants in MAT No.36 of 2001 - has been held not to be tenable on all points, except in case of a few named writ petitioners/Appellants in MAT No.36 of 2001 and order has been passed accordingly. A few writ petitioners/Appellants in MAT No.36 of 2001 have been held to be eligible for the benefit granted under the Memorandum dated March 7, 1990 and I have passed an order in their favour. MAT No.36 of 2001 has been partially allowed, only to that extent.;