JUDGMENT Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that during his course of employment he has improved his qualification and passed M.P. Ed. (Master Degree in Physical Education Group) from the Ishwar Deshmukh College under Nagpur University and he had applied for higher scale of pay for improvement of his qualification which was rejected and he came up before this Hon'ble Court and moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 8963(W) of 2002 and this Hon'ble Court directed the concerned authority to decide the case of the writ petitioner and accordingly, the case of the writ petitioner was taken up for hearing. The prayer of the writ petitioner for higher scale of pay was refused by the Director of School Education by and under order dated 17th November, 2003, which is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court. Learned Counsel submits that the ground for not allowing the benefit is that no leave was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for appearing at the examination. Learned Counsel submitted that when the writ petitioner improved his qualification even without sanction of leave in his favour he should not be denied such benefit. He submits there are judgements of this Hon'ble Court in support of such contention. 2. He also points out that the Director of School Education, West Bengal has referred a Government Order dated 8th March, 2000 wherein it was clarified that the benefit of higher scale of pay would be admissible to those physical education teachers only if he or she obtained such degree on acquiring of three years regular course from the recognised University. 3. Learned Counsel submits that if the degree is recognised by the U.G.C. there is no scope of refusing such benefit to the writ petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order should be set aside and the direction be given to release all pensionary benefits taking the improved qualification. 4. Learned Counsel for the State appears and submits that the grounds for refusal, as appears from the order passed by the Director of School Education, are all correct as per Government guidelines and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get such benefit. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. So far sanctioning of leave is concerned that rests with school and the District Inspector of Schools. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. So far sanctioning of leave is concerned that rests with school and the District Inspector of Schools. There is nothing on record to show that any objection was ever raised by any authority in this regard. The school is getting service. There is no dispute that the petitioner improved his qualification. The degree obtained by the petitioner is also recognised by U.G.C. and therefore, it is immaterial whether it was three years regular course or other courses. 6. Accordingly, I allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to release all retiral service benefits in favour of the writ petitioner taking into account his improved qualification. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to get any arrear salary for such improvement. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. There would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed