Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
4406W/2012 on 21 June, 2012
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
1
21.06.2012.
d.p.
W. P. No. 4406 (W) of 2012
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay,
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguli,
Mr. D. Banerjee.
... For the State.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in
Ramkrishnapur Sree Gyan Mandir Junior High School in Science
group on 1st April, 1970. At the time of his appointment, his
educational qualification was B.Sc. B.Ed. Subsequently, he
enhanced his qualification by acquiring master degree in
Mathematics in 1992. He also passed M.Ed. examination in 1993.
Admittedly, he was allowed M.Sc. scale of pay with effect from 16th
July, 1992.
Problem started when he claimed two additional increments
for his doctoral degree after he acquired Ph.D degree in
Mathematics in 2002.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not seek prior permission from
the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) before enrolling
himself in the Ph.D. course. It is undisputed that the petitioner got
himself enrolled in the Ph.D. course after obtaining permission
from the Administrator of the said school.
The petitioner's prayer for grant of higher scale of pay was
rejected by the concerned Director of School Education on threefold
grounds which are as follows:-
2
1) Violation of provision contained in G.O. No. 548-SE(S)
dated 24th June, 1997.
2) Violation of the provision contained in School Education
Department's Order No. 593-SE(B) dated 27th November,
2007.
3) The Ph.D. degree which he acquired is neither essential
nor desirable qualification related to the appointment of
the petitioner.
These are the three grounds which were mentioned by the
Director of School Education in the impugned order for rejecting
the petitioner's claim for the two additional increments for his Ph.D
degree.
Let me now consider as to how far the Director of School
Education was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim on those
three grounds.
With regard to the first ground as mentioned above, this
court finds that the prior permission was required to be taken from
the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) through the school
authority when any teacher wanted to enroll himself and appear in
the examination conducted through Correspondence/Distance
Mode of education from the UGC-affiliated Universities. It is
nobody's case that the petitioner either enrolled himself or
appeared in any examination conducted through
Correspondence/Distance Mode of education from the UGC-
affiliated Universities.
As such, the provision contained in the said Government
Order dated 24th June, 1997 has no application in the facts of the
instant case. The Director of School Education, in my view, wrongly
applied the said provision in the facts of the instant case.
3
With regard to the second ground as mentioned above, this
court holds that since the petitioner enhanced his qualification by
acquiring doctoral degree in 2002, his prayer for grant of higher
scale of pay cannot be denied by referring to the School Education
Department's order dated 27th November, 2007 which did not see
the light of the day when the petitioner enhanced his qualification
by acquiring doctoral degree in 2002.
As such, the Director of School Education, in my view, acted
illegally by rejecting the petitioner's claim by referring to the said
School Education Department's order dated 27th November, 2007
which is absolutely inapplicable in the facts of the instant case.
Let me now consider as to how far, rejection of the
petitioner's prayer on the third ground as mentioned above is
justified. According to the Director of School Education, the degree
which the petitioner obtained is neither essential nor desirable
qualification related to the appointment of the petitioner.
Let me now see how far such finding is correct.
Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the Science
Group as a Mathematics teacher. His topic of research work was
co-relational study of achievement in various aspects of modern
algebra and cognitive development of under graduate students.
Algebra is no doubt, a subject of study in a Junior High School
and/or Secondary School.
As such, this court cannot agree with the findings of the
Director of School Education that the subject in which the
petitioner acquired his doctorate degree is not taught in the school.
Thus, this court holds that none of the grounds as
mentioned by the Director of School Education in support of his
conclusion for rejection of the petitioner's prayer for grant of two
incremental benefits, can be supported by this court.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
4
Thus, this court by taking note of the recent Government
Order being No. 37-SE/ES(S)/5P-37/10 dated 5th January, 2012
directs the State-respondents to grant the incremental benefits to
the petitioner as per the provision contained in Rule 12(5) of the ROPA 1998 with effect from the date of convocation when the doctoral degree was awarded to the petitioner by the concerned university.
Needless to mention here that since the petitioner has retired by this time his pay fixation is now required to be revised in the manner as indicated above, and all the financial benefits including arrear thereof should be given to the petitioner on the basis of revision of his pay scale, within eight weeks from date of communication of this order.
Needless to mention here that the retiral benefits of the petitioner should also be calculated on the basis of his last pay which will be given to the petitioner in the last month of his service after revising his pay scale in the manner as aforesaid. All financial benefits arising out of such refixation should be given to the petitioner within eight weeks.
It is made clear that in default of payment of the said admissible dues to the petitioner within the time as fixed above, the State-respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum on such unpaid dues of the petitioner from the date since when the payment became due and payable to her up to the date of actual payment thereof.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for the petitioner immediately.
( Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J )