Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 413 (CAL)

Pradip Kumar Biswas v. State of West Bengal

2014-05-06

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2014
Judgment Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be briefly summed up. On the basis of a recommendation of the School Service Commission the petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher of Chemistry of Ghatbaor Anchal Adarsha Vidyalaya in the district of North 24 Parganas on December 1, 1998. His appointment has already been approved by the appropriate authority. In the recommendation of the School Service Commission the petitioner’s qualification was recorded as a pass-graduate. The admitted position is that he obtained the higher qualification, i.e., honours in the B.Sc. examination after submission of his application form to the School Service Commission for the concerned post. Subsequently he made a representation through the Managing Committee of the school to the concerned District Inspector of Schools for granting him the scale of pay for honours graduates. By a letter dated, March 11, 2008, the Director of School Education, Government of West Bengal, i.e., the respondent no. 4 herein, had informed the petitioner that he was not entitled to get the higher scale of pay in view of Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 (the Act, for short). This communication has been assailed in the present writ petition. According to the petitioner the Act came into being on December 27, 2005 and has no retrospective operation. Therefore, the right which had already accrued in favour of the petitioner before the Act came into force cannot be taken away on the basis of any provision of the Act. Mr. Sanyal, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that at the time of appointment of the petitioner the concerned Act was yet to be enacted and ROPA, 1998 was prevailing at the relevant time which clearly justified the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel and withdraw the impugned memo dated March 11, 2008 and for other consequential reliefs. The State-respondents, in spite of given sufficient opportunities did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. As such the State version of the case is not available with us. The State-respondents also went unrepresented in this case as none appeared on their behalf. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 when the Act had no existence. The State-respondents, in spite of given sufficient opportunities did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. As such the State version of the case is not available with us. The State-respondents also went unrepresented in this case as none appeared on their behalf. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1998 when the Act had no existence. It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operations. This Act has no retrospective operation. A similar question cropped up for consideration in the case of Shantanu Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in 2009(2) CHN 536 , where a learned single judge of this court had inter alia held that the Act has no retrospective effect and as such when the petitioner in that case had obtained the higher qualification in the year 1992, the Act cannot be any bar for him in getting such a higher scale of pay. In such view of the settled principle of law, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Sanyal. The circular impugned in the writ petition is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to refix the petitioner’s pay taking into consideration his qualification as an honours graduate in the relevant subject in the concerned school within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.