Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Nita Dey Chandra vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 December, 2014
Author: Manjula Chellur
Bench: Manjula Chellur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
( Mandamus Appeal )
Present :
The Hon'ble Chief Justice Justice Manjula Chellur
And
The Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
M.A.T. 545 of 2012
Smt. Nita Dey Chandra
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. P.S. Deb Barman
Mr. S. Alam
Mr. M.N. Chowdhury
Mr. J.K. Mukhopadhyay ...For the Appellant
Mr. Sadhan Roy Chaudhury
Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu ...For the State
Judgment on ...December 04, 2014
Re.: C.A.N. 3095 of 2012 (Section - 5).
The appeal is barred by time.
Causes being sufficient, delay is condoned and the appeal is taken on
record.
The application for condonation of delay is, thus, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the State respondents.
It is not in dispute that the appellant / writ petitioner was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' having Pass qualification through School Service Commission. Subsequently, she has acquired 'Master's degree' in Physics from the Jadavpur University in 2004. She approached the learned Single Judge seeking higher scale of pay since she acquired Masters' qualification. There seems to be some confusion with regard to amended order dated February 12, 1999 applicable to the facts of the 2 present case. Much prior to introduction of West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, several circulars were issued from time to time extending benefit of higher scale of pay to different classes of teaching faculty.
On February 12, 1999 West Bengal Government issued an order, being No. 25-SE(B)/IM-102/98 at page 63 of the compilation and the relevant portion of the said Clause 12(3) reads as under :-
"(3) All teachers including Physical Education Teachers and Librarians of Secondary Schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or groups relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications, with effect from the 1st January, 1996 or the date of improving qualifications, whichever is later."
Subsequently, this was replaced by an order dated July 13, 1999, being No. 155-SE(B)/10M-102/98 Pt-I. Sub-para (3) at page 75, reads as under :-
"3) All teachers, including Physical Education teachers and Librarians of Secondary Schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications or who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or groups relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications, with effect from the 1st January, 1996 or the date of improving qualifications, whichever is later, provided that such higher qualified teachers in the relevant subjects or group is justified as per approved staff pattern if that school, if such teacher is appointed through West Bengal School Service Commission, his/her pay will be fixed in the scale of pay as per his/her qualification mentioned by the West Bengal School Service Commission."
Reading Clause 12(3) at page 67 and page 75 clearly indicates the mistake crept up in the order dated February 12, 1999. At page 75, the same is rectified. In other words, the order dated July 13, 1999 is applicable to the case of the appellant / writ petitioner. Neither order dated November 22, 1993 nor order dated December 26, 2005 are applicable. The order dated December 26, 2005 has no application as the appellant / writ petitioner did not enter the post with higher qualification. She entered the post with pass qualification but acquired higher qualification i.e. 3 improved her qualification during her service. The said fact happened in 2004. Therefore, by virtue of Section 12(3), which is at page 75 to the compilation, she is entitled to such higher scale of pay from the date of acquiring qualification on May 22, 2004. Learned Judge by referring to Order dated December 26, 2005, which has no relevance to the fact of the case, proceeded to opine that petitioner was not entitled for the said benefit.
In the light of above discussion and reasoning, the appeal deserves to be allowed setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated February 06, 2012.
The respondent authorities shall fix higher scale of pay of the appellant / writ petitioner as indicated in Clause 12(3) by virtue of corrected order dated July 13, 1999 within three months from today.
The appeal is disposed of. Consequently the application for expeditious hearing of appeal, being CAN 7877 of 2012 is also disposed of.
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.
( Manjula Chellur, CJ. ) ( Arijit Banerjee, J. ) akb