Judgment : Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. The issue involved in the present petition is the interpretation of the Career Advancement Scheme which has been notified by the State of West Bengal on 21st June, 1990 as applicable to teachers. 2. The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis on a deputation vacancy. He was appointed as Assistant Headmaster w.e.f. 20th April, 1961 on an ad hoc basis. He was appointed substantively to the aforesaid post on 24th January, 1962 and was confirmed in the post after two years, i.e., on 24th January, 1964. The petitioner had acquired his Master’s degree in 1962. However, he was extended the Post-Graduate pay-scale (Rs. 550-1470) only from 2nd April, 1981 in terms of the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1981 (for short ‘ROPA Rules’). 3. The Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.A.S.’) framed by the Government of West Bengal was notified on 21st June, 1990 and came into force with effect from 1st April, 1999. 4. The petitioner retired from service on 30th November, 1992. He submitted a representation to the authorities on 20th March, 1996 calling upon the respondents to pay to him the second higher scale as he had completed 20 years of service and was entitled to the same under C.A.S. As there was no response from the respondents the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court in 1996 being C.O. No.16025(W) of 1996. By an order dated 9th March, 1999 the learned single Judge directed the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for the benefits under the C.A.S. after affording him a personal hearing. The petitioner’s claim was rejected by an order dated 20th January, 2000. 5. The petitioner then preferred an application before the Administrative Tribunal to challenge that speaking order. He contended in his application that in view of the C.A.S. he was entitled to the first higher pay-scale after competition of 10 years of service and the second higher pay-scale after 20 years of service as he had not been promoted for over 20 years. The petitioner contended that initial pay-scale afforded to him was Rs. 550-1470. He obtained a higher amount after completion of his Master’s degree in accordance with rules governing payment of a higher salary on acquisition of better qualifications. The petitioner contended that initial pay-scale afforded to him was Rs. 550-1470. He obtained a higher amount after completion of his Master’s degree in accordance with rules governing payment of a higher salary on acquisition of better qualifications. According to the petitioner this first payment which he received in terms of the Rule 9 of the West Bengal (ROPA) Rules, 1986 on achieving better qualifications did not preclude him from securing the second higher scale of pay after 20 years. The petitioner pleaded in his original application that he had been denied his seniority at the stage of his initial appointment by delaying his substantive appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster. He contended that he was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4750 at the time of retirement on 30th November, 1992. The petitioner further pleaded that a memorandum was issued by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal on 21st June, 1990 allowing the Government employees in the revised pay-scale Nos.1 to 16 to move to their respective next higher scale of pay on completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service. The time spent in the revised pay-scale and the corresponding unrevised pay-scale was to be taken together in order to consider first movement to the scale next above the first higher scale on completion of 10 years of continuous service. 6. The application was contested by the State before the Tribunal. It was contended in the reply filed by the State before the Tribunal that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the second higher scale of pay in terms of the C.A.S. The State further pleaded that since the petitioner had accepted his pension without any objection, he was estopped from claiming any further amount. The State contended that the petitioner was therefore not entitled to the pay-scale which he claimed, i.e., Rs. 3000-4750. 7. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions of the parties before it and dismissed the application of the petitioner. It was of the view that since the petitioner had secured the benefit of the movement to a scale next above his initial pay-scale on the basis of the higher qualification acquired during service, he was entitled to only one movement to the next higher scale of Rs. 2200-4000 on completion of 20 years. 8. It was of the view that since the petitioner had secured the benefit of the movement to a scale next above his initial pay-scale on the basis of the higher qualification acquired during service, he was entitled to only one movement to the next higher scale of Rs. 2200-4000 on completion of 20 years. 8. Aggrieved by that order of the Tribunal the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Mayukh Moitra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner has been deprived of the pay-scale to which he was entitled in terms of the C.A.S. He submitted that the respondents had deliberately misinterpreted the provisions of the scheme in order to deny the petitioner his just dues. The learned Counsel then drew our attention to the various provisions of the scheme which we will presently deal with and submitted that the Tribunal has erred in accepting the interpretation placed by the State on the scheme. He submitted that the first higher scale of pay acquired by the petitioner while in service was due to betterment of his academic qualifications and not because he had been deprived of any promotion. He submitted that this first movement to the higher pay-scale on account of achievement of better qualifications cannot be regarded as the first higher pay-scale to which an employee who has not been promoted for 10 years is entitled to under the C.A.S. Mr. Moitra further submitted that the acquisition of the scale of Rs. 550-1470 was on account of the better qualifications and not because of C.A.S. He pointed out that this scale of pay of Rs. 550-1470 was accorded to the petitioner in 1981 although he had obtained Master’s degree in 1962 itself. According to the learned Counsel, since the petitioner had completed 20 years of service at the time of retirement, he was entitled to the second higher pay-scale as he was eligible for the benefits of the C.A.S. The learned Counsel pointed out that his name had been recommended by the Headmaster of the school for the payment of the second higher scale of pay at the time of retirement being Rs. 3000-4750. 9. Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel for the State, strenuously opposed the contentions raised by Mr. Moitra. 3000-4750. 9. Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel for the State, strenuously opposed the contentions raised by Mr. Moitra. She submitted that the Tribunal had interpreted the C.A.S. in letter and spirit and therefore had denied the petitioner’s claim. The learned Counsel also submitted that the C.A.S. benefit was available only when there was no upgradation or promotion available to an employee. According to her, since the petitioner had already been upgraded to the scale of Rs. 550-1470, that upgradation would have to be considered as the first higher pay-scale mentioned in the C.A.S. The second pay-scale of Rs. 2200-4000 had already been given to the petitioner in 1989. Therefore, he was not entitled to any further amount. The learned Counsel submitted that when the petitioner was appointed, he did not possess the Post-Graduate qualification and therefore he was given the Graduate pay-scale of Rs. 550-1470. He was allowed first higher scale of pay that is the Post-Graduate pay-scale in terms of the West Bengal (ROPA) Rules, 1981. According to her, that amounted to the first enhancement in the pay-scale which the petitioner had enjoyed and therefore he was not entitled to the amount that he has claimed. Ms. Bhattacharya then pointed out that there was no discrimination in the treatment of the petitioner as alleged by him in the petition. She submitted that while the petitioner was appointed with a Graduate degree, the 2 persons mentioned by him in his petition were appointed after they had completed their Post-Graduation and therefore were accorded the benefit of Post-Graduate scale, i.e., Rs. 550-1470. 10. It is necessary at this stage to set out certain provisions of the C.A.S. which are relevant for the present case. 2. The Government employees in revised pay scale nos.1 to 16 will be allowed to move to their respective next higher scales on completion of ten years of continuous and satisfactory service in their respective revised scales and their corresponding unrevised scales taken together and to move to the scale next above the first higher scale on completion of further ten years of continuous and satisfactory service in the first higher scale and the corresponding unrevised scales under previous ROPA Rules taken together. Every movement to such higher scales will be subject to the fulfilment of usual norms of promotion. Every movement to such higher scales will be subject to the fulfilment of usual norms of promotion. This general scheme of career advancement will, however, be subject to provisions undernoted: (i) … … … … … … (xi)… … … (xii) A school teacher who has got the benefit of movement to scale similar to or above the second higher scale on the basis higher qualification acquired during service will not get any benefit under this scheme except the benefit of fixation of pay under rule 42A or WBSR Pt.I on completion of total service of twenty years. Provided that a school teacher who has got benefit of movement to a scale next above on the basis of higher qualification acquired during the service will be eligible to only one movement to the second higher scale under this scheme on completion of total service of twenty years. (xiii) A school teacher who acquires a higher qualification which entitle (sic) him to the first higher scale after movement to the first higher scale on completion of ten years of service will not be eligible for any further benefit for acquiring the said higher qualification. He will, however, be eligible for the second higher scale on completion of total service of twenty years. (xiv) Secondary teachers, Headmasters / Headmistresses with Doctorate Degree in the subject taught or in an allied subject shall get two additional increments from the date of the convocation on which such degree is awarded. Provided that those who obtained this degree prior to the date of coming over to the revised scale shall get two additional increments from the date with effect from which they elect to draw pay in the revised scale. (Emphasis added) 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed in 1960. This appointment was on a temporary basis against a deputation vacancy. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in the post of Assistant Headmaster on 20th April, 1961 while the respondents contended that his appointment to a substantive post of Assistant Headmaster was from 24th January, 1962. The petitioner has annexed a photocopy of his service book to the petition. It was also produced before the Tribunal. His educational qualifications mentioned are B.A.(Honours) in Bengali and M.A. in Bengali. The service book records that the petitioner officiated as an Assistant Headmaster from 19th May, 1961 on the scale of Rs. 130-5-150-10-350. The petitioner has annexed a photocopy of his service book to the petition. It was also produced before the Tribunal. His educational qualifications mentioned are B.A.(Honours) in Bengali and M.A. in Bengali. The service book records that the petitioner officiated as an Assistant Headmaster from 19th May, 1961 on the scale of Rs. 130-5-150-10-350. He was then permitted to continue in service for three months at a time till he was appointed in the substantive post. There was no break of service. While he was officiating as an Assistant Headmaster he was allowed the revised pay-scale of Rs. 225-10-325-15-475 from 1st April, 1961. He continued in this manner till he was appointed on a substantive basis from January, 1962 on probation for two years. He was confirmed with effect from 24th January, 1964 after expiry of the probation period. The pay he earned on the substantive post was Rs. 535/- which rose to Rs. 565/- as per the increments given in the scale of pay. After the ROPA Rules of 1981 the petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs. 715/- on 2nd April, 1981 in the scale of Rs. 550-25-625-30-745. There is a further noting in the service book that he was being paid as an Assistant Master of the Bidhannagar Government High School in the scale of pay of Rs. 1780-3780 (Scale No.15), and he was provisionally allowed to enjoy the career advancement benefit in terms of Para 2(ii) of the Memo issued by the Finance Department on 21st June, 1990 read with item No.1 and 6(ii) of the Finance Department’s Memo No.9737-F dated 10th October, 1990. He was placed in the scale of Rs. 2200-80-3000-100-4000 (Scale No.16) w.e.f. 1st April, 1989 for 10 years. On satisfactorily completing 28 years of service without promotion his pay was provisionally fixed at Rs. 2840/- with effect from April, 1989 in the aforesaid scale. That was the last benefit that he enjoyed in the enhanced pay-scale. 12. The scheme of 21st June, 1990 provides that any employee in the revised pay-scale Nos.1 to 16 would be permitted to move to the next higher scale on completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service. The years of service include those spent in the revised pay-scale as well as in the corresponding unrevised scale. 12. The scheme of 21st June, 1990 provides that any employee in the revised pay-scale Nos.1 to 16 would be permitted to move to the next higher scale on completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service. The years of service include those spent in the revised pay-scale as well as in the corresponding unrevised scale. Such employees are permitted to move to the scale next above the first higher scale on completion of a further 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service. Shorn of the bureaucratic jargon, what the clause means is that a Government employee, who has not been promoted in service for 10 years despite rendering satisfactory and continuous service during this period, is entitled to one upliftment to the next higher pay-scale. If he continues in the same way without a promotion for 10 further years, he is entitled to a second upliftment into the next higher pay-scale. This is the general scheme applicable to the Government employees. 13. As regards the teachers, the scheme provides that where a school teacher has got the benefit of a movement to a scale similar or above the second higher scale on the basis of a higher qualification acquired during service, he/she would not be entitled to the benefit under the scheme accepted for the pay fixation under Rule 42A of the WBSR Part 1 on completion of 20 years of service. This means that a school teacher, who acquires better qualifications during service and has been granted the second higher scale of pay, would not be entitled to any C.A.S. benefit. This appears to be because the teacher has already got two upgradations, because of the acquisition of better qualifications. C.A.S. benefits are for those who have not received any upgradation or promotion. The scheme provides that all such employees would be entitled to such upgradations during a period of 20 years of service. However, a school teacher, who has moved from one scale to the next higher scale after obtaining better qualifications, is eligible only to one movement to the second higher scale on completion of 20 years of service. 14. Under Clause 2(xiii) when a school teacher acquires higher qualifications entitling him/her to the benefit of the first higher scale, he/she is not eligible for a further benefit within 10 years. 14. Under Clause 2(xiii) when a school teacher acquires higher qualifications entitling him/her to the benefit of the first higher scale, he/she is not eligible for a further benefit within 10 years. However, he/she is entitled to the second higher scale of pay on completion of a total service of 20 years. 15. Unfortunately, the scheme is couched in language which is so ambiguous that it lends itself to different interpretations. The words “a fresh second higher scale” used in Clauses 2(xii) and 2(xiii) really refers to the next higher scale, i.e., the first scale above the initial scale which the Government employees was drawing his pay is considered as the first higher scale which he would be entitled to after completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service. After completion of further 10 years of service he would be entitled to the next higher scale which is in fact the second scale above his initial scale that he was drawing before he was given a C.A.S. benefit. 16. However in the case of the petitioner his first upgradation is considered as the higher grade afforded to him on acquisition of better qualifications. Therefore under clause (xii) he is entitled to the second higher scale only after completing 20 years in service. He has been extended this benefit. Therefore he is not entitled to any further benefit. 17. The Tribunal has not erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application. There is no perversity in the order. There is thus no need for us to interfere with the order in our extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 18. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.