JUDGMENT : PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging an order being memo dated May 25, 2016 passed by the Managing Committee of the Midnapore Town School (H.S.) which denied the writ petitioner additional increments upon enhancing his qualifications by obtaining the qualification of doctorate. Over and above, the petitioner prays for the grant of two additional increments on the strength of the additional qualification obtained by him. Since it is necessary to record the factual matrix of the case for proper redressal of the petitioner's grievance, the circumstances that led to the institution of this writ petition are recorded briefly in the foregoing paragraphs. 2. The writ petitioner, like most men, has a back-story. He was an Assistant Teacher in English at Joykrishnapur Nehru Bidyabhawan (H.S.). This was approved by the respondent no. 3 District Inspector of Schools by a Memo dated December 19, 1987. While serving as an Assistant Teacher, with the qualifications of Masters' in English and a B.Ed. (English), the writ petitioner desired to improve his qualifications. Accordingly, he applied before the Managing Committee of the said school seeking permission to obtain a higher qualification. The Managing Committee by its resolution dated January 5, 2001 accorded approval to the petitioner's request which entitled him to register for his doctoral degree as informed by the Utkal University by a letter dated June 11, 2002. Thereafter, in due course, he completed his doctorate in English (Ph.D, English) from the Utkal University, which the said University notified to him by Notification No.EC-VI/1127 - Engl/1796 dated September 25, 2004. The convocation was held on January 28, 2006 which the University informed him about on January 12, 2006. When the writ petitioner participated in the due process for selection of a headmaster, the School Service Commission recommended his appointment to the Gomunda Suburban High School (HS) with effect from May 22, 2002, when he was still to acquire the qualification of doctorate, but when he was appointed permanently to the vacancy caused by the retirement on January 31, 2005 of the head-master of Midnapore Town School (HS), on the basis of the recommendation made by the School Service Commission, the said Commission recorded his qualifications as M.A. in English, B.Ed., and Ph.D. which the respondent no. 3 also accepted and the appointment of the writ petitioner was approved with effect from July 25, 2006. 3. On May 2, 2008, the Secretary of the managing committee of Midnapore Town School wrote to the respondent no. 3 seeking the fixation of pay with two increments and payment of the financial benefits with effect from January 28, 2006 both for his acquiring the additional qualifications with prior permission and also under the career advancement scheme of the State of West Bengal and binding memoranda issued by it. This representation was not considered. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 8897 (W) of 2009 which was disposed of by an order dated December 14, 2015 whereby the District Inspector of Schools was directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 4. However, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) Midnapore after considering the representation of the petitioner and after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, passed an order dated May 25, 2016 rejecting the petitioner's representation. The said order was passed with the observation that even though provisions to grant additional increments existed under West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1998 as well as under West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1990, the absence of such provisions in West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 2009 seemed to be unfavourable to the claim of the petitioner. This was stipulated by memo no. 46-SE (B) dated February 27, 2009 which provided that no fixation could be made for awarding incremental benefits. Since the petitioner obtained his doctoral degree only on January 28, 2006, the respondent no. 3 felt that he came within the ambit of West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 2009 and since his claim for additional increments is not supported by provisions contained in West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 2009 as well as in terms of memo no. 46-SE (B) dated February 27, 2009, he could not be granted that benefit. The decision of the respondent no. 3 is based on the overriding effect in Clause 15 of the memo dated February 27, 2009. 46-SE (B) dated February 27, 2009, he could not be granted that benefit. The decision of the respondent no. 3 is based on the overriding effect in Clause 15 of the memo dated February 27, 2009. This provides: - "The provisions of this order shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other rules, orders and notifications from (sic!) the time being in force and all such rules, orders and notifications shall have effect subject to the provision of these rules." The respondent no. 3 therefore has based his conclusion that a notification relying upon Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 2009 and being at best an executive order, is capable of overriding the provisions of Section 14(3) of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005. There is no discussion in the decision of whether in the facts of the case, the prior permission obtained by the writ petitioner to improve his qualification on January 5, 2001, from the managing committee, was sufficient for the qualification to be recorded for it to be considered for recording it as a qualification for the Headmaster, whether in Gomunda Suburban High School (HS) or for his appointment as Headmaster, Midnapore Town School (HS) with effect from May 22, 2002 and July 25, 2006 respectively. He did not consider the consequent fact as to whether, in view of Section 14(3) of the Act of 2005 since the post he had originally been appointed to was a Honours Graduate/Post Graduate Post, and the qualifications of a Headmaster required at least a Masters' Degree, the managing committee could have acceded to his request and represented on May 2, 2008 to the respondent no. 3 that he be given additional increments on the basis of such qualification of Ph.D. which he had duly acquired with prior permission. When he had obtained the prior permission, it had been for improving his qualification. When the question came for additional increment, a statute being the Act of 2005 had supervened which overrode any circular or notification. Only the Act of 2005 would govern the question. The respondent no. 3 did not consider this. 5. I have often wondered what would have happened if the writ petitioner had not moved the court when he did. When the question came for additional increment, a statute being the Act of 2005 had supervened which overrode any circular or notification. Only the Act of 2005 would govern the question. The respondent no. 3 did not consider this. 5. I have often wondered what would have happened if the writ petitioner had not moved the court when he did. From 2008 till 2016, that is to say, for eight years, a simple denial based on something which came into force from 2009 though perhaps with retrospective effect, was not trotted out by the respondent authorities to negate a claim of the writ petitioner to which he had been entitled since January 28, 2006 and which had been claimed on May 2, 2008. The respondent no. 3 woke up to memoranda allowing the denial of the benefit, only after the writ court asked him to get off his posterior and take a decision which was pending for more than 7 years, by then. 6. As I have indicated in paragraph 1 above, the writ petitioner challenges this order dated May 25, 2016 passed by the respondent no. 3. In support of this challenge, the petitioner argues that the provision for grant of incremental benefits was available under West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1990 as well as West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1998. Not only that, the petitioner even seeks to draw parity with another situation where the Joint Secretary of the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal by memo dated September 1, 2011 allowed additional incremental benefits to a teacher observing that no provision of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 prevented additional incremental benefits to be awarded to teachers who have enhanced their qualifications. The petitioner further drew my attention to a memo dated January 5, 2012 issued by the Joint Secretary to the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal to the Director of School Education, State of West Bengal wherein the grant of additional increments to teachers was approved on the basis of rules prescribed before the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 came into effect. To this extent it was pertinent to refer to clause 5 of Rule 16 dealing with Career Advancement Scheme as laid down in West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1998, which provided that all Secondary Teachers /Headmasters/ Headmistress 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/was awarded. However, the extension of such incremental benefits was limited to those teachers who acquired doctoral qualifications before August 18, 2005. This date marked the coming into effect of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005. 7. At the time of initial arguments, it was contended by the Learned Counsel representing the respondent authorities that the limitation prescribed under the order dated January 5, 2012 applies upon the writ petitioner as he acquired his doctoral qualification on January 28, 2006 whereas the grant of incremental benefits to teachers acquiring doctoral qualifications was limited to those who obtained their qualifications prior to August 18, 2005. So the respondents have argued that a "cut-off date" applies. As against this, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a judgment of a coordinate bench has quashed the said cut-off date of August 18, 2005. The petitioner sought leave to produce the order passed by the coordinate bench. 8. Subsequently, the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner drew my attention towards the said judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Chowdhury Moniruzzaman-v-State of West Bengal reported in, (2012) 5 CalHN 598. The said matter, quite akin to this writ petition, involved an Assistant Teacher who sought two additional increments as per the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1998 on the strength of his doctorate degree. However, the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner in that case on the ground that the petitioner obtained his doctoral qualification after the cut-off date laid down under a government order passed in lieu of the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1998. However, the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner in that case on the ground that the petitioner obtained his doctoral qualification after the cut-off date laid down under a government order passed in lieu of the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1998. By the said order, additional increments were restricted only to those who obtained their doctoral qualification before the cut-off date, which was in fact, the date on which the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 under an impression that the Act of 2005 imposed a ban on the grant of incremental benefits. Against the aforesaid factual background, a coordinate bench of this Court observed that since the petitioner was appointed against a post of Honours Graduate/PostGraduate teachers' category the case of the petitioner has to be dealt in terms of sub-section (3) to section 14 of the Act of 2005. It should not be lost sight of that sub-section (3) to section 14 of the Act of 2005 allows increments to teachers who have enhanced their qualification subsequently. With these observations in mind, it was ultimately held that since the Act of 2005 do not impose any restriction on grant of incremental benefits acquiring a doctoral degree, no restriction can be imposed by the impugned government order and therefore the petitioner was allowed the benefit of incremental benefits in that writ petition. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Dr. Uday Shankar Chakrabarty-v-The State of West Bengal and Others reported in, (2013) 1 CalLT 352 (HC) passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Therein, the Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the appellant the benefit of two additional increments upon acquiring his PhD qualification even if it was acquired after the cut-off date laid down in terms of Rule 12 (5) of the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1998. the respondents/ state authorities, upon an almost similar factual background, considering the ratio laid down in Chowdhury Moniruzzaman (Supra). 10. None of these judgments have been appealed against. Each has achieved finality. They therefore, bind me being on the basis of a factually similar case. 11. There is an uncanny resemblance in facts in all these cases. These are too similar to be neglected. 10. None of these judgments have been appealed against. Each has achieved finality. They therefore, bind me being on the basis of a factually similar case. 11. There is an uncanny resemblance in facts in all these cases. These are too similar to be neglected. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that the claims of payment of incremental benefits should not be decided merely on the basis of a cut-off date which may amount to double classification on the same subject, which the respondent authorities have been in a practice to do by way of an executive fiat without considering the inherent rationality of the decision as well as leaving unchecked the arbitrariness it would go on to perpetuate. The teachers holding doctoral degrees are in themselves a class and any sub-classification on the basis of a cut-off date among those standing on the same foot would be violative of their rights so far as no reasonable nexus could be established between the classification and the resultant object sought to be achieved. In fact, the coordinate bench in the case of Chowdhury Moniruzzaman (Supra) quashed the cut-off date on among others, this reasoning. 12. I had permitted the writ petitioner to produce precedents in the support of his contention that the cut-off date had been quashed on August 27, 2018, and he had produced the two judgments I have referred to above on August 29, 2018 when I next took up the matter. The respondents on such date, sought time to file written submissions. On that basis, I reserved judgment with liberty to the learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondents to file written notes of submissions by September 5, 2018. Though no written submissions were filed, Ms. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Government Advocate, produced a copy of a judgment I had passed on August 2, 2018 in WP No.2662 (W) of 2018 [Manoranjan Biswas-v-The State of West Bengal and Others]. Though it cannot override the decision of the Division Bench of this Court as referred to in paragraph 9 above, it appeared that in that case, the claim of the writ petitioner to a higher scale of pay on improving his academic qualifications had been rejected and I had upheld the rejection. However, on facts the said case is not applicable to the present writ petition. However, on facts the said case is not applicable to the present writ petition. For one thing the post in question in that case was that of B.Sc.(Pass) and not Honours Graduate/Post Graduate as in this case, at the initial stage of appointment as an Assistant Teacher; in addition there no prior permission was obtained for improving the qualification and I had recorded that to improve the qualification the teacher has to stay away for some days during which he cannot perform his duties as a teacher, and so prior permission was necessary. In the present case, prior permission was granted on January 5, 2001. Most importantly, that case was to be decided on the basis of Section 14(2) of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 and this case is under Section 14(3) of the said Act, where the case of Chowdhury Moniruzzaman (Supra) binds me. Thus, the said case decided by me can be factually distinguished and is not an authority for the present case. 13. I was surprised that the respondents did not argue the reason that the respondent no. 3 had assigned for rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner as a valid ground for rejection. As appears from paragraph 4 of this Judgment, the respondent no. 3 did not even speak of the cut-off date of August 18, 2005 and its applicability. Since the respondents have chosen to argue the applicability of the cut-off date of August 18, 2005 to sustain the decision dated May 25, 2016 though the respondent no. 3 had not referred to it I have dealt with that objection raised by the learned advocate for the respondents and overruled it. 14. So far as the decision dated May 25, 2016 is concerned, in view of the discussion of the basis of the said decision in paragraph 4 of this judgment, I am afraid that I must hold that the respondent no. 3 has not considered all the relevant facts and materials on record, particularly the provisions of Section 14(3) of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 which bind him. He has come to a conclusion based on the order/notification dated February 27, 2009 which sources the ROPA Rules, 2009 and it is clear that he thinks that rules, being delegated or subordinate legislation can override primary statute. I have no patience with this formalism. He has come to a conclusion based on the order/notification dated February 27, 2009 which sources the ROPA Rules, 2009 and it is clear that he thinks that rules, being delegated or subordinate legislation can override primary statute. I have no patience with this formalism. I have therefore no alternative but to quash the said decision dated May 25, 2016 as perverse and also declare that the cut-off date argued by the respondents to exist - being August 18, 2005 - is not lawful and has already been quashed by a coordinate bench in Chowdhury Moniruzzaman (Supra). I therefore, relegate the matter to be decided afresh, on the anvil of Section 14(3) of the said West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order, after giving all the persons concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and to pass a reasoned order. If he holds in favour of the writ petitioner, he shall give logical effect to the decision by fixing the pay of the writ petitioner with two increments from January 28, 2006 without further ado, or any step being taken by the writ petitioner, within a further period of two weeks. Arrears of pay shall be given within the same period of two weeks. If the arrears of pay are given within the said period of two weeks, no interest shall be payable. If the respondent no. 3 delays the payment, even after holding the petitioner entitled, then in addition to contempt of court proceedings, the State of West Bengal shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the arrears from two weeks from the date of decision till actual payment. If he holds against the writ petitioner, that he is not so entitled under Section 14(3) of the Act of 2005, he shall communicate the same within two weeks from the date he has taken the decision. 15. The writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. The parties shall bear their own costs.