JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. 1. Two appeals have been heard analogously as they involve similar issues. MAT 429 of 2024 has been directed against the order dated January 29, 2024 passed by the learned single judge in WPA 1869 of 2021 while MAT 430 of 2024 has been directed against the order dated December 18, 2023 passed in WPA 8597 of 2020. Both the appeals have been filed by the State of West Bengal and its functionaries. 2. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the private respondents were working as guards of the pumping stations maintained at the Gram Panchayat level. Although, the pumping equipment and the work is controlled and operated by the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of West Bengal, none of the private respondents had been appointed by the Government or are employees of the government. He has contended that, the general maintenance and security of the pumping stations is under the concerned Gram Panchayat and for such purpose, the Public Health Engineering Department provides monthly lump-sum payment to the concerned Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that, the learned single judge misconstrued the memorandum dated September 16, 2011. He has contended that, none of the private respondents are entitled to the benefits of such memorandum. He has referred to the various clauses of such memorandum in support of such contention. In any event, he has contended that, respondent No. 25 in MAT 429 of 2024 was appointed on October 16, 2007 and therefore in any view of the matter, he does not come within the purview of such memorandum. 4. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that, the writ petitioner/private respondents were not engaged against any sanctioned post. They had been engaged on daily rated basis. Public Health Engineering Department or the Directorate does not have any involvement in any manner in the process of their engagement by the respective Gram Panchayats. 5. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that, the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 in Clause (x) has stated that, the provisions of such memorandum will not be applicable where contractual engagement has been made without any sanctioned post and for any specific project for a very temporary period up to a maximum 6 years. 5. Learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that, the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 in Clause (x) has stated that, the provisions of such memorandum will not be applicable where contractual engagement has been made without any sanctioned post and for any specific project for a very temporary period up to a maximum 6 years. Consequently, since the writ petitioner/private respondents have not been engaged against any sanctioned post, they cannot claim benefit under the memorandum dated September 16, 2011. 6. Learned Junior Standing Counsel has pointed out that, in MAT 430 of 2024, the writ petitioner/private respondents had filed an earlier writ petition being WP No. 27389 (w) of 2014 which was disposed of by an order dated November 15, 2019 requiring the Authorities to consider the claim of the writ petitioners as to their entitlement to receive the benefits under the memorandum dated April 23, 2010 as amended. He has referred to the order dated September 25, 2020 passed by the authorities pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated November 15, 2019. He has contended that, the authorities correctly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner as, the writ petitioners were not engaged against any sanctioned post and were engaged only on daily rated basis and that, preparation of wage bills of the writ petitioners through the HRMS portal does not vest any right to the petitioner to claim benefits like other contractual workers engaged against sanctioned post. He has contended that, similar is the position so far as the other appeal being MAT 429 of 2024 is concerned. 7. In support of his contentions, learned Junior Standing Counsel has relied upon 2011 volume 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamata Mohanty) and 2007 volume 8 Supreme Court cases 264 (M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others). 8. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents in MAT 429 of 2024 has contended that, his clients are entitled to the benefits of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011. He has however, accepted the fact that the respondent No. 25 is not entitled to the benefits of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 due to the date of his appointment. In any event, he has contended that, respondent No. 25 is entitled to the benefits of other circulars. 9. He has however, accepted the fact that the respondent No. 25 is not entitled to the benefits of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 due to the date of his appointment. In any event, he has contended that, respondent No. 25 is entitled to the benefits of other circulars. 9. Relying upon 1994 volume 2 SCC 41 (Chaya and Others vs. Bapusaheb and Others) learned advocate appearing for the private respondents in MAT 129 of 2024 has contended that, appeal court possesses requisite power to do complete justice between the parties despite none of his clients has filed a cross objection or a cross appeal. 10. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents in MAT 430 of 2024 has relied upon 1986 volume 2 SCC 679 (Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Another vs. K. S. Jagannathan and Another) and contended that, court possesses requisite power to do complete justice between the parties in the event, no cross objection was filed. 11. As noted above, the two appeals have been directed against orders of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions and directing the authorities to pay benefits under the relevant circulars including September 16, 2011. Although the learned Single Judge had directed disbursement of such benefits to the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge did not direct any compensation by way of interest or otherwise to be given to the writ petitioners for the delay in disbursal of the benefits under the concerned circulars, to them. 12. Admitted as well as proved facts have established that, the writ petitioners were working as guards under various Gram Panchayats on daily rated basis and not against any sanctioned post. Their wage bills had been prepared on the HRMS portal of the State of West Bengal. 13. From time to time, State Government had introduced various financial and retiral benefits for casual or daily rated workers or contractual workers. Such financial and retiral benefits has been enumerated in the memorandum dated April 23, 2010, December 22, 2010 and September 16, 2011. 14. The writ petitioners in both the appeals have claimed that they were entitled to the benefits enumerated under such memoranda of the State Government and that they were wrongfully denied such benefits. Aggrieved by such actions, the writ petitioners in the two appeals had approached the writ court for reliefs with regard thereto. 14. The writ petitioners in both the appeals have claimed that they were entitled to the benefits enumerated under such memoranda of the State Government and that they were wrongfully denied such benefits. Aggrieved by such actions, the writ petitioners in the two appeals had approached the writ court for reliefs with regard thereto. Two several writ petitions filed at their behest had been disposed of by the writ court by directing the authorities to consider and decide on their claim for receipt of benefits under the relevant memoranda. In both the matters, the authorities had declined to extend the benefits under the relevant memoranda on the ground that the writ petitioners did not qualify for receipt of the same, the appointment of the writ petitioners were not against any sanctioned post and that the memorandum of the State Government extended financial and retiral benefits to casual or contractual workers who were engaged against sanctioned post rather than to persons who were not engaged against any sanctioned post. 15. Aggrieved by those decisions of the authorities, the writ petitioners in the two appeals had filed two several writ petitions resulting in the two impugned orders challenged in these two appeals. 16. The last of the memoranda issued by the State Government on the subject is September 16, 2011. 15. Aggrieved by those decisions of the authorities, the writ petitioners in the two appeals had filed two several writ petitions resulting in the two impugned orders challenged in these two appeals. 16. The last of the memoranda issued by the State Government on the subject is September 16, 2011. Clauses of such memoranda which have fallen for consideration in the appeal are as follows :- ******************************************************* “In order to provide security of tenure, appropriate emoluments and certain terminal benefits subject to fulfillment of certain conditions to the casual / daily rated / contractual workers who have remained engaged in various Government establishments for a considerable period of more than 10 years in connection with implementation of various schemes / projects of various Departments of the Government two memorandums vide No. 2966-F(P) dated 23.04.2010 and No. 11794-F(P) dated 22.12.2010 were issued by the Government in Finance Department.” ********************************************************* “After careful consideration of the matter and in suppression of the aforesaid orders and all other orders issued by other Departments in the matter, the undersigned is directed by order of the Governor to say that the casual / daily rated / contractual workers, who are remaining attached to various establishments of the Government Departments/Directorates/Regional Offices/Other Organizations for not less than 10 years continuously as on 01.08.2011 and have rendered service for at least 240 days each year will be allowed the following benefits:” ******************************************************** “x) The provisions of this Order will not be applicable where contractual engagement has been made without any sanctioned post and for any specific project for a very temporary period up to a maximum 6 (six) years or finishing up the project whichever is earlier. Thus in such cases steps will not be required to be initiated for filling up the posts through regular appointments as per the Recruitment Rules, since the posts are temporary by nature.” ******************************************************** “xii) The benefit of this Memo will be applicable mutatis mutandis to the Panchayat Bodies / ULBs / Statutory Bodies.” 17. The third paragraph of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 opening with the word “After careful consideration” has specified that, the memorandum will apply to casual/daily rated/contractual workers who remained attached to various establishments of the Government departments for not less than 10 years continuously as on August 1, 2011 and have rendered service for at least 240 days each year. Therefore, in order to avail of the benefits of such memorandum a casual/daily rated/contractual worker needs to be engaged prior to August 1, 2011 and be in continuous service for 10 years, and rendering service for at least 240 days for each year. The test therefore, is to find out whether the writ petitioners had been engaged prior to August 1, 2011 and that, they had rendered service for 240 days each year or not, in any Government Department/Directorate/Regional Office or other organizations. Such paragraph is silent as to engagement against sanctioned post. In other words, such paragraphs does not mandate that the worker concerned has to engage against a sanctioned post to avail of the benefits extended. Clause (xii) has extended the benefits of such memorandum to workers engaged by panchayat bodies also. 18. Excepting respondent No. 25 in MAT 429 of 2024 it has been acknowledged and admitted at the bar that all other writ petitioners were engaged prior to August 1, 2011 and having rendered service of 10 years continuously and 240 days for each year of such service. Each of such writ petitioners albeit the exclusion of respondent No. 25 in MAT 429 of 2024 therefore, have come within the purview of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011. 19. The issue is whether, such writ petitioners stand excluded by reason of Clause (x) of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 or not. Such clause has provided that the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 will not apply where the contractual engagement has been made without any sanctioned post and for a specific project for a very temporary period up to maximum 6 years or on the conclusion of the project whichever was earlier. 20. The exclusion clause of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 namely, Clause (x) has to be construed strictly as against the State as the State is the author thereof. Moreover, State has extended benefits to casual/daily rated/contractual workers by such memorandum. Therefore, such clause has to be interpreted so as to extend the benefits to such targeted beneficiaries. 21. Reading clause (x) of the memorandum dated August 16, 2011 on the anvil of the propositions noted in the preceding paragraph, it provides that, the benefits of the memorandum will not be available when the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied namely :- i. Contractual engagement had been made without any sanctioned post. ii. 21. Reading clause (x) of the memorandum dated August 16, 2011 on the anvil of the propositions noted in the preceding paragraph, it provides that, the benefits of the memorandum will not be available when the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied namely :- i. Contractual engagement had been made without any sanctioned post. ii. Contractual employment had been made for specific project. iii. Contractual employment had been made for a maximum period of 6 years or till the conclusion of the project whichever is earlier. 22. In our understanding, all three conditions as noted above have to be satisfied for a contractual employee to be denied the benefits of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 by reason of Clause (x) thereof. 23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case none of the writ petitioners have fallen within the exclusion contemplated under Clause (x) of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011. 24. Principles relating to matters of public appointments have been discussed in M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra). In the facts and circumstances of that case, whether Lokayukt constituted under the Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 has jurisdiction to go into the appointments of employees of the cooperative bank fell for consideration. Appointments to the post had been questioned. Such is not the facts and circumstances in the present case. 25. In Mamata Mohanty (supra), the Supreme Court has held that, the Court should not perpetuate a wrong order or a decision of the Administration. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the State has extended certain benefits and that, the writ petitioners are a portion of the targeted beneficiaries of the memorandum dated September 16, 2011. Question of perpetuating any wrong in respect of an administrative action by directing the benefits enumerated in the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 to be disbursed does not arise. 26. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order did not grant relief to the writ petitioners so far as delay in payment of the revised remuneration receivable by them. The writ petitioners are entitled to just compensation for the delay in receipt of their benefits under the memorandum dated September 2011. 27. 26. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order did not grant relief to the writ petitioners so far as delay in payment of the revised remuneration receivable by them. The writ petitioners are entitled to just compensation for the delay in receipt of their benefits under the memorandum dated September 2011. 27. In respect of an appeal from a decree, the Supreme Court in Chaya and Others (supra) has noted Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and held that, such rule confers a wide discretionary power on the Appellate Court to pass such decree and order as ought to have been passed or the nature of the case may require, notwithstanding the fact of the appeal is only with regard to a part of the decree or that the party in full state of the power is proposed to the exercise has not filed any appeal or cross objection. 28. In K. S. Jagannathan and Others (supra) Supreme Court while dealing with a writ petition has held that, High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. 29. Excepting respondent No. 25 in MAT 429 of 2024 entitlement of all the other writ petitioners to receive the benefits that have been extended under the memorandum dated September 16, 2011 cannot be doubted. Therefore, each of such writ petitioners have to be paid their dues in accordance with the directions passed by the learned Single Judge, as impugned herein. 30. In addition thereto, we direct that, the appellants will have to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of accrual of such benefits in respect of each of such writ petitioners, till payment thereof. We have taken judicial notice of the fact that nationalized banks usually grants interest at such rate in respect of fixed deposits, while directing payment of interest at such rate. We have taken judicial notice of the fact that nationalized banks usually grants interest at such rate in respect of fixed deposits, while directing payment of interest at such rate. We have issued such directions for payment of interest in order to do complete justice between the parties. Such directions for payment of interest is also required in order to compensate the writ petitioners who are entitled to the benefits, for not being paid on the due dates. 31. Impugned order dated January 24, 2024 passed in WPA 1869 of 2021 and December 18, 2023 passed in WPA 8597 of 2020 are modified to such extent. 32. Interest as directed be paid within 4 weeks from date. 33. MAT 429 of 2024 and MAT 430 of 2024 along with all connected applications are disposed of accordingly. 34. I agree.