Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 882 (CAL)

Sukanta Sharma v. State of West Bengal

2015-10-14

SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT : The affidavit-of-service filed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in Court today be kept on record. 2. This writ application is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Inspector of Schools S.E.), Ranaghat Sub Division, District-Nadia. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the above authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of Post Graduate scale of pay in her favour in connection with his services as an Assistant Teacher in Fulia Krittibas Smriti Vidyalaya, District-Nadia in Science Group (Physics) for acquiring M.Sc. degree in Physics. 4. The petitioner enrolled his name in the Part-I of the M.Sc. course in Physic and completed his Part-II examination in M.Sc. Physics in the year 2012. The petitioner joined the post of Assistant Teacher in Physics Honours subject in Fulia Krittibas Smriti Vidyalaya, District-Nadia on 07.07.2011. The Additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Ranaghat Sub-Division, District-Nadia approved the appointment of the petitioner as Physics (Honours) vide memo no.353/RS/SE dated 30.08.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner completed his M.Sc. Physics in the year 2012. 5. According to the petitioner in absence of any provision for obtaining prior permission before joining service, the petitioner was entitled to get the benefits of Post Graduate scale of pay. The issue involved in this writ petition has been settled earlier by this Hon’ble Court by the judgment an order dated February 13, 2014 passed in W.P. No.4110 (w) of 2014 (Sunanda Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors) which is anoted below:- “The name of the petitioner was recommended by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Region, for the post of Assistant Teacher in Science Group (Pure) in respect of the above school. At that point of time the petitioner was pursuing study in M.Sc. course from Vinayaka Missions University, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner obtained the above M.Sc. degree in the year 2011, after joining the above service. The prayer of the petitioner for extending the above benefit of post graduate scale of pay in her favour has already been forwarded to the respondent No.3 by the school concerned with a forwarding letter dated December 26, 2013 (at page 37 of this writ application) and the same is still pending. The prayer of the petitioner for extending the above benefit of post graduate scale of pay in her favour has already been forwarded to the respondent No.3 by the school concerned with a forwarding letter dated December 26, 2013 (at page 37 of this writ application) and the same is still pending. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 14 of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 for obtaining prior permission at the time of enrollment of her service as an Assistant Teacher for pursuing higher study cannot be applied in this case in view of the fact that the petitioner had enrolled her name for higher study before she was appointed in the post under reference.” 6. After considering the above order, I find that question of obtaining prior permission is not required as the petitioner enrolled his name in M.Sc. Course (Physics) prior to the date of joining in the said school and provision regarding prior permission not applicable in the case of the petitioner. According to the above provisions, a teaching staff of a Non Government Aided Educational Institution was required to obtain permission to enroll his/her name for perusing postgraduate study. But the above provision was not applicable in the case of the petitioner since he had enrolled his name for perusing the post graduate study before his appointment in the post under reference. He was not in a position to record the above qualification in respect of his service at the time of his appointment in view of the fact that he obtained the post-graduate qualification after his appointment. In order to examining the validity of the allegations raised against the impugned order the relevant portion of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 is quoted below:- “14(3). Every teacher of a school shall, if appointed in the Honours Graduate or Post Graduate teacher category, be entitled to draw pay of Post Graduate teacher category, upon acquiring Post Graduate degree, in the manner as specified in G.O. 1595-SE(S) dated 26.12.2005.” 7. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate for the petitioner also contends that obtaining prior permission from the authority is not required, in view of settled law laid down by this Hon’ble High Court. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate for the petitioner also contends that obtaining prior permission from the authority is not required, in view of settled law laid down by this Hon’ble High Court. In support of his contention Mr. Biswas relies on decisions reported in 2009 (4) CHN 440 (Maleka Khatun vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and 2012 (1) CLJ (Cal) 349 (Pampa Das vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), 2012 (4) CHN Cal 372 (Subhasish Naskar vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). Learned advocate of the petitioner relied on the decisions passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court reported in 2013 (2) CHN (Cal) 565 (Samir Kumar Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, 2013 (2) CHN (Cal) 632 (Akhtar Hossain Chowdhury vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and 2015 (1) CLJ 24 (Smt. Nita Dey Chandra vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). Learned Advocate for the petitioner also relied on a learned Single Bench decision reported in (2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 856 (Nibir Kumar Som vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the records and the decisions reported in Samir Kumar Saha (supra), Akhtar Hossain Chowdhury (supra) as well as Smt. Nita Dey Chandra (supra) and the learned Single Bench decision reported in Nibir Kumar Som (supra) that since the petitioner enhanced his qualification in the relevant subject and group obtained casual leave without affecting and/or hampering the duties in the school, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to enjoy higher scale of pay as he has enhanced his qualification in the relevant subject and group that is to say M.Sc. in Physics. 9. That being the position, in my considered view, it would be futile exercise if the matter is sent for consideration by the concerned Additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Ranaghat Sub-Division, District-Nadia as the issue is settled on the basis of the abovementioned decisions. 10. Therefore, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioner for grant of higher scale of pay for improving academic qualification in the relevant subject and group cannot be denied by the authorities as he has improved his qualification without disturbing and hampering the business of the school. 11. 10. Therefore, in my opinion, the claim of the petitioner for grant of higher scale of pay for improving academic qualification in the relevant subject and group cannot be denied by the authorities as he has improved his qualification without disturbing and hampering the business of the school. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I direct the respondent No.3, The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Nadia to take appropriate steps for granting higher scale of pay to the petitioner for acquiring Post Graduate degree in M.Sc. (Physics) and fix the petitioner’s scale of pay from the following date of the last date of examination that is to say 5th October, 2012 and disburse the necessary amount to the petitioner without any further delay but positively within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. Needless to mention that the petitioner would be entitled to receive the benefit of higher scale of pay for improving the qualification of the petitioner as per ROPA, 1998 as well as ROPA 2009. 13. With this direction, this writ petition is allowed. 14. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.