Temporary workers at Panihati Municipality blocked the civic body’s main gate on Thursday, demanding payment of five months of unpaid salaries and outstanding allowances. The protest disrupted access to the municipal office and later led to a confrontation between protesters and police who attempted to clear the entrance.
The demonstration took place at the Panihati municipal premises in West Bengal. According to the report, employees said their wages and allowances had remained unpaid for a long period and demanded that the dues be settled quickly. By blocking the main gate, the protesters also made it difficult for people to enter the municipal office for routine work.
North Suburban district BJP president Chandicharan Roy and BJP leader Joy Saha were among those who faced difficulty entering the civic office during the protest. The report said the situation became tense when police tried to remove the protesters, leading to a scuffle between the two sides.
Roy said workers had the right to protest but should not block the gate or obstruct municipal operations. The BJP leaders also questioned the manner in which the temporary workers had been recruited and retained. Their allegations were not supported by any municipal document or response in the supplied report.
Roy claimed that the workers had been appointed on an emergency basis during the Covid-19 period and that their terms were later extended at the discretion of Trinamool Congress councillors. He further alleged that some workers had performed personal tasks for councillors instead of municipal duties, including cooking, shopping and driving. These claims were made by Roy and were not independently established in the report.
Saha questioned the criteria used for the appointments and asked whether the workers had undergone any examination or formal selection process. He also alleged that people who worked at the homes of Trinamool councillors and leaders were being paid from public funds. The report did not provide details of the recruitment orders, employment terms, municipal resolutions or payment records that could confirm or disprove these allegations.
The dispute highlights two separate issues for the municipality: the immediate demand for payment of wages and allowances, and questions over the administrative basis of temporary appointments. Temporary municipal workers often perform functions linked to the day-to-day operation of civic bodies, making delays in their payments an issue connected to both labour administration and the continuity of local services. However, the supplied report does not specify the number of workers involved, the total amount outstanding, the departments in which they work or the reason given by the municipality for the payment delay.
The report also does not include a statement from Panihati Municipality, the mayor or the civic administration on the workers’ wage claims, recruitment process or the confrontation at the gate. It is therefore not possible from the available information to establish when the dues will be paid or whether any formal inquiry into the appointments has been ordered. The immediate development remains the workers’ demand for settlement of their arrears and the tension that followed the attempt to clear the municipal entrance.
