Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Dwipendu Dhar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 November, 2024
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
09 05.11.2024
rkd
W.P.A. 22344 of 2024
Ct.18
Dr. Dwipendu Dhar
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Ms. Sumouli Sarkar,
Mr. Saurojit Mukherjee
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Dipanjan Dutta,
Ms. Sukanya Datta
....for the State.
By presenting this writ petition challenge
has been thrown to the decision of the District
Inspector of Schools (SE), Birbhum dated 23 rd July,
2024 whereby the concerned District Inspector of
Schools has insisted the petitioner being the
Headmaster of a Government aided High School to
resubmit his pension papers since according to the
District Inspector of Schools sanction of
incremental benefits with effect from 1 st July, 2006
was impermissible.
Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate representing
the petitioner submits that from 1 st July, 2006 one
yearly incremental benefit was sanctioned in favour
of the petitioner but other two additional
incremental benefits were allowed with effect from
13th May, 2006 in recognition of Ph.D. degree
2
obtained by the petitioner and 13 th May, 2006 was
the date of convocation for conferring such degree.
It is also contended that at the time of
settling pensionary benefits in favour of the
petitioner his entitlement to draw two additional
incremental benefits with effect from 13 th May,
2006 cannot be questioned.
On the contrary, Mr. Datta, learned
advocate representing the State respondents
submits that the petitioner has availed of the benefits under ROPA 2009 with effect from 1st January, 2006 and in terms of ROPA Rules of 2009 there was no provision to allow two additional incremental benefits for acquiring Ph.D. degree which prompted the present District Inspector of Schools (SE), Birbhum to issue memo dated 23rd July, 2024.
In support of such contention reliance has been placed on behalf of the State respondents on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench, reported in (2019) 3 CHN (Cal) 221 (State of West Bengal - vs- Chandra Bhusan Dwivedi).
Having considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that the issue needs to be decided on exchange of affidavits.
3
Let affidavit-in-opposition to this writ petition be filed by three weeks from date and affidavit-in-reply, thereto if any, be filed by one week thereafter.
Petitioner shall be at liberty to mention the matter before the appropriate Bench for expeditious hearing after the time fixed hereinabove for exchanging affidavits.
The learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the non- appearing respondents by seven days from date and file affidavit-of-service on the next date.
This Court is required to take into consideration the date of superannuation of the petitioner on 31st December, 2024. Taking note of the contents of the memo dated 23rd July, 2024 it appears that till date claim of pensionary benefits of the petitioner has not been settled in view of the stand taken by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), Birbhum as it emanates from the said memo dated 23rd July, 2024.
If the writ petition is not decided before the superannuation of the petitioner in that event State respondents are directed to release admissible retiral dues to the petitioner by four weeks from the date of superannuation of the petitioner, if he is 4 otherwise entitled.
However, it is made clear that petitioner shall not be insisted upon to make refund of alleged overdrawn amount.
Such steps shall be taken by the State authorities without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the present writ petition.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)