Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 789 (CAL)

Swastika Bachhar v. State of West Bengal

2013-10-08

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2013
JUDGMENT Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. 1. The moot question involved in the present writ petition is whether an Assistant Teacher of a school possessing post-graduate qualification in a relevant subject can be denied the post-graduate scale of pay merely because the School Service Commission had not mentioned the same at that time of initial recommendation. 2. The case of the petitioner inter alia is that she joined the Kalyannagar Vidyapith for Girls on 9.2.1999 as an Assistant Teacher in the language group against a permanent vacancy in the basic pay scale of Rs. 4,650-10,175/- following the recommendation of West Bengal Regional School Service Commission. She appeared at the examination conducted by the School Service Commission with the qualification of M.A., B.Ed. in the year 1998. In the recommendation made by the School Service Commission for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher her proper qualification was specifically mentioned. 3. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the fact that the school authorities had appointed the petitioner with the post-graduate qualification the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) South 24 Parganas, by mistake sanctioned only the graduate scale of pay to the petitioner instead of sanctioning the post-graduate scale of pay without considering her post-graduate qualification. 4. Demanding post-graduate scale of pay the petitioner made a representation to the concerned District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) thorough the school along with the resolution of the Managing Committee of the school on 22.7.2003. But in spite of it the authorities concerned had intentionally sat tight over the matter without making any response. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present writ petition inter alia praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the post-graduate scale of pay in favour of the petitioner, to disburse and release the arrears along with interest and other reliefs. 5. The petitioner has referred to different government circulars in support of her case which entitles her to get the basic pay refixed according to the post-graduate scale of pay. 6. It may be mentioned that in spite of liberty being given to the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition as early as on 17.5.2006 they have not filed any affidavit. However, they appeared at the hearing of this application. 7. 6. It may be mentioned that in spite of liberty being given to the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition as early as on 17.5.2006 they have not filed any affidavit. However, they appeared at the hearing of this application. 7. It appears from the Government Order dated 22.11.1993 that it was clarified that all teachers of secondary schools and junior high schools including Madras has with higher qualification of post-graduate degree or the equivalent in relevant subjects would get higher scales of pay in relaxation of the staff pattern. 8. Thus, it appears that the petitioner applied for the concerned post with the post-graduate scale of pay and that was specifically mentioned by the School Service Commission while recommending her for an appointment in the concerned school and the school too in turn had mentioned it while sending her appointment for approval to the District Inspector of Schools. She has been appointed with a post-graduate degree in a subject which is relevant to her teaching and thus she is entitled to the post-graduate scale of pay. 9. It may be mentioned that a similar question also cropped in the case of Partha Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported in (2004) 2 Cal. L.T. 610 (HC) where the petitioner who was an Assistant Teacher of Physical Education was praying for post-graduate scale of pay on the strength of his post-graduate degree. 10. A learned single judge of this court had observed that a teacher appointed with a post-graduate degree in a relevant teaching subject cannot be denied the post-graduate scale of pay. The learned single judge further observed that from the government orders pertaining to fixation of pay scale of teachers it is apparent that fixation is done on the basis of qualifications irrespective of the classes taught. The learned single judge held that in view of the Government Order dated 22.11.1993 the petitioner cannot be denied the post-graduate scale of pay. 11. Thus in view of the different Government Orders particularly the Government Order dated 22.11.1993 teachers with masters degree are entitled to higher scale of pay. Even the subsequent circular dated 13.7.1999 cannot be construed to have taken away the petitioner’s right inasmuch as the petitioner joined the school on February 9, 1999 when the Government Order dated 13.7.1999 did not come into effect. Even the subsequent circular dated 13.7.1999 cannot be construed to have taken away the petitioner’s right inasmuch as the petitioner joined the school on February 9, 1999 when the Government Order dated 13.7.1999 did not come into effect. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be granted the post-graduate scale of pay. 12. The present case stands on a better footing than that of the petitioner in the case of Partha Chatterjee (Supra) inasmuch as the qualification of the petitioner has been mentioned by the School Service Commission while recommending her for appointment. I find no reason why the higher scale of pay should not be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner who possesses the post-graduate degree in Bengali being her relevant teaching subject at the time of appointment would be entitled to the scale relating to the post -graduate qualification. 13. The writ petition is allowed. 14. The petitioner shall be entitled to re-fixation of her salary in the post-graduate scale of pay from the date of her appointment and also other consequential reliefs including the arrears. 15. The respondents are directed to calculate the arrears and all other benefits of the petitioner on account of her entitlement to higher scale of pay and to disburse and release the same within eight weeks from the date of the communication of this order. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.