Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
33482W/2013 on 3 December, 2013
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1
3rd December,
2013.
(Sm)
W. P.33482 (W) of 2013
Mr. Lakshmin Kanta Pal
Mr. Bandhu Brata Bhula
.....for the petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee,
Ms. Aparna Ghosh.
.....for the State.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned decision
of the respondents refusing higher pay scale in favour of the
petitioner who acquired Ph. D. degree in the relevant subject from 22nd March 2012.
Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that there are several judgments of this Hon'ble Court in favour of awarding such increments. He further submits that the concerned respondents by their own circulars allowed such benefit although there is a cut off date. Later on this Hon'ble Court struck down impugned circular relating to cut off date by two judgments and granted two increments for Ph.D. degree in the relevant subject. Those two cases are reported in 2013 (2) CHN 440 and 2013 (3) CAHN 114.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the State submits let the matter be sent to District Inspector of Schools (SE) South 24-Parganas for taking a decision.
Mr. Pal submits that there is no use for sending the same to D.I. because there are circulars for granting two increments on acquisition of Ph.D degree.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the acquisition of Ph.D. degree is not in dispute. Issuance of Memo dated 5th January 2012 is also not in dispute. It is also not dispute that the cut off date was set aside by this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court have directed to give two increments in favour of the concerned teacher in similar circumstances.
Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to get benefit of two increments for his improved qualification i.e., Ph.D. degree.
2The point is already decided. There is nothing to be decided further.
Therefore, the concerned respondents are directed to give two increments in favour of the writ petitioner from the date of convocation.
The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from date of communication of this order.
The writ petitioner is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties.
(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)