Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Shri Dipak Kumar Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 May, 2013

Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari

Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari

                                                      1



15.05.2013                    W.P. 15951(W) of 2008
    ss
                                Shri Dipak Kumar Roy
                                         Vs.
                            The State of West Bengal & ors.

                                   Mr. R.N. Majumdar
                                   Mr. Sourav Chakraborty
                                         ...... For the petitioner


                   The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ

             application     is    denial   of   higher          scale   of    pay   for

             improvement of his qualification subsequent to his

             appointment.

                   Mr. R. N. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for

             the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner was

             B.Sc. with Bio pass and appointed as a Bio-Science

             teacher   in    June,     1985      in       the    concerned      school.

             Subsequently, after obtaining leave from the school the

             writ petitioner acquired M.Sc. in Zoology, post-graduate

             qualification, in 1997. As per direction of Managing

             Committee,      the    writ    petitioner          was   taking    classes

             regularly since 2003. According to Mr. Majumdar, school

             management took a resolution for awarding higher scale

             of pay to the petitioner on his acquisition of post-graduate

             degree and sent it to the concerned District Inspector of
                                  2


Schools. But the District Inspector of Schools refused to

grant such scale in favour of the writ petitioner.

      Mr. Majumdar submits there are circulars in favour

of the writ petitioner, which entitles the writ petitioner to

get higher scale of pay.

      Mr. Majumdar submits refusal on the part of the

concerned District Inspector of Schools on the ground of

not obtaining sanctioned leave for acquisition of such

post-graduate degree is not at all a valid ground for

refusal.

      Mr. Majumdar submits there are decisions of this

Hon'ble Court wherein it was specifically held that no

such permission is necessary. However, he submits that

the Board of Secondary Education granted such approval

in favour of the writ petitioner for such study leave in

favour of the writ petitioner and according to him, the

other ground for refusal is not at all applicable in the

instant case specially when the impugned provision of

Section 14(3) of the West Bengal School (Control of

Expenditure) Act, 2005 has come into operation in

December, 2007. Therefore, those provisions are not at all

attracted in the instant case. According to Mr. Majumdar,

the order passed by the Joint Secretary on 27th November,
                                    3


2007 is not sustainable in law and the same should be

quashed. The writ petitioner should be allowed to have the

benefit of higher scale of pay.

      Mr. Majumdar submits that the decision reported in

(2008)3 W.B.L.R. (Cal) 216 (Satanu Tirki Vs. The State of

West Bengal & ors.) is supporting the case of the writ

petitioner. In that case it was held that Act of 2005 is not

at all applicable since the same has come into effect in

December, 2007, much after the improvement of the

petitioner's qualification.

      Mr.   Majumdar      wanted       to     cite    several    other

judgements on this point. But I am not inclined to take

those judgement in this regard.

      In spite of service nobody is appearing for the State.

No   accommodation       is   sought        for.     No   affidavit-in-

opposition is used against the writ petition.

      In my view, it is now settled position that there is no

necessity to take approval from the concerned District

Inspector of Schools to get such leave for improvement of

qualification by a teacher of the school.             In the instant

case, the writ petitioner took leave not only from the

school but got approval from the Higher Secondary Board

on account of study leave. Therefore, the respondents
4

cannot take a plea that they were not aware of such leave or there is any further necessity to obtain anyone else's permission in that regard. The writ petitioner has acquired post-graduate qualification prior to coming into effect of the said Act of 2005 and therefore, the provision of the said Act is not applicable.

In my view, this Act of 2005 has no manner of application in the instant case. Therefore, the writ petitioner is entitled to get higher scale of pay for his improved post-graduate qualification for which the institution as well as the students are benefited and the service of the writ petitioner is being accepted by the school.

Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent, District Inspector of Schools (SE), Jalpaiguri is directed to release higher scale of pay in favour of the writ petitioner on and from the date of such improvement.

The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.) 5