Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 734 (CAL)

Prakash Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal

2016-09-19

SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. Since none appears on behalf of the State, Mr. Biswajit De, the learned advocate is requested by this Court to appear in this matter with junior according to his choice. The Legal remembrance is directed to regularise their engagement. This writ application is directed against an order dated December 31, 2009 under memo No. 329/3(3)/CC passed by the respondent No. 3 by the impugned order the respondent No. 3 rejected the claim of the petitioner for granting post-graduate scale of pay in his favour in connection with his service as an Assistant Teacher in Language Group (Sanskrit) of Gobindapur High School (H.S.) P.O. Kalabagh, district-Murshidabad. 2. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by an order dated 16th November, 1995 with effect from 25th August, 1995 in the post of Assistant Teacher with academic qualification of B.A. Honours in Sanskrit, B.Ed. at the time of appointment the petitioner possessed the qualification of Master Degree in Sanskrit. 3. Since the prayer of the petitioner for granting Post-graduate scale of was not considered by the respondent authorities, he filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same was disposed of by an order dated 1st April, 2009 in the matter of Prakash Chandra Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No. 31113 (W) of 2008). In compliance of the above order, the impugned order was passed. 4. Mr. Biswajit De, learned advocate for the State submits that the impugned order passed by the concerned respondent is quite justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as well as after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 3 taking note that the petitioner was appointed in Hons Category with B.Ed. (B.A. Hons B.Ed.) and did not make any objection about receiving hons scale of pay at the time of his appointment. Therefore, he was not entitled post graduate scale of pay. (B.A. Hons B.Ed.) and did not make any objection about receiving hons scale of pay at the time of his appointment. Therefore, he was not entitled post graduate scale of pay. For proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case the provisions of the sub-Rule (3) of Rule 16 of West Bengal Non-Government Educational Institutions Employees (Revision of Pay and Allowance), Rules 1990 under Memo No. 33 Edn.(B) are required to be considered and the above provisions are set out below:- "(3) All teachers including physical Education Teachers and Librarians of Secondary schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or groups relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications, with effect from, the 1st January, 1986 or the date of improving qualifications whichever is latter." 6. Subsequently the above provision of ROPA Rule 1990 has been further revised on 12.2.1999 under ROPA Rule 1998. The revised provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of ROPA-1998 is also quoted below. "(3) All teachers including Physical Education Teachers and Librarians of Secondary Schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or groups relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications, with effect from, the 1st January, 1996 or the date of improving qualifications whichever is latter." 7. After perusal of the above provisions of the ROPA 1990 and also ROPA Rule 1998, I find that the petitioner who was appointed with higher qualification to enjoy the benefits of the post graduate scale of pay w.e.f. the date of his appointment i.e. 25.08.1995. The same issue is already decided in the case of Shyamal Kumar Paul v. The State of West Bengal, reported in 2014(3) CHN (cal) 160. Where it has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench that the post graduate scale of pay shall be granted in favour of the concerned Assistant teacher from the date of his appointment if he is appointed with post-graduate qualification relevant to his teaching subject and/or group. 8. Therefore, in view of the discussion and observation made hereinabove I find that the decision making process of the respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed and set aside. 8. Therefore, in view of the discussion and observation made hereinabove I find that the decision making process of the respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 cannot be sustained in law and the same is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 3 is directed to extend the benefit of post graduate scale of pay to the petitioner from the date of his appointment, i.e. 25.08.1995 in accordance with provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 16 of the said ROPA 1990 as well as sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 of the ROPA Rule 1998 within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention here that the respondent No. 3 will refix the scale of the petitioner in terms of ROPA RULE 1990 as well as ROPA RULE 1998 accordingly. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.