Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Gopendranath Sarkar vs State Of W.B. & Ors on 19 March, 2012
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1
19.03.2012
ss W.P. 6863(W) of 2005
Gopendranath Sarkar
Vs.
State of W.B. & ors.
Mr. Debabrata Acharyya
Mr. Bibekananda Sinha Roy
... For the petitioner
Mr. Biswajit De
... For the State
The impugned memo dated 22nd April, 2003 issued
by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin
Dinajpur as well as the impugned memo dated 1st April,
2004 issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE),
Dakshin Dinajpur are in question in the writ application.
Learned Counsel appearing in support of the writ
petitioner submits that the writ petitioner after
improvement of his qualification has duly received the
increased pay scale till his date of his retirement. After
the date of retirement the concerned respondent raised
some doubt and/or dispute as regards the entitlement of such higher scale of pay for improved qualification. For these reasons, the retiral dues have been suspended and/or withheld.
2It was argued by the State Counsel that in view of wrong fixation given on account of acquiring post- graduate degree there is overdrawal on the part of the writ petitioner and for that reason re-fixation of pay scale is necessary and the retiral dues are to be paid accordingly.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It appears that the action of the respondent authorities are totally illegal and unfair. The concerned respondents should be aware of the present position of law in this regard. As per circulars applicable the candidates who have improved their qualification, entitled to get higher scale of pay. It appears that the respondents are harassing the retirees who are lawfully entitled to get the higher scale of pay immediately after the improvement of qualification.
The writ petitioner duly performed his duty and/or rendered service by acquiring experience and expertise with such improvement in his qualification. It is not only the students but also the school who are benefited during the service tenure of the writ petitioner. No objection was taken against such improvement nor any action was taken either.
3
The writ petitioner was allowed to get the higher scale of pay. Unfortunately, immediately on retirement the concerned respondent illegally and unfairly took the plea of re-fixation of salary of the writ petitioner.
I hold that the actions of the respondents are all illegal, unfair and malafide. This type of action should not be taken by the respondents where the concerned teacher has improved his qualification and has enjoyed higher scale of pay on the approval of the concerned District Inspector of Schools till the date of his retirement.
Otherwise also the Apex Court decision is clear in that respect. In case any overdrawal is there before retirement that cannot be realised by the respondent authorities unless it is found that the concerned employee has a role to play in such fixation.
In my view, there is no such allegation in the instant case.
The impugned order and correspondence of the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur and the Director of School Education are set aside and the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Dakshin Dinajpur is directed to release the pensionary benefits taking into 4 account the higher scale of pay which the writ petitioner is entitled to get till the date of his retirement within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order on the basis of a letter of the learned Advocate on record for the petitioner, without awaiting for any certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.
(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)