Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Tapas Banerjee vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.). According ... on 28 April, 2016
Author: Sahidullah Munshi
Bench: Sahidullah Munshi
1
-2016
/Sh
W.P. 5808(W) of 2016
In Re: Tapas Banerjee. . . .Petitioner.
Ms. Debjani Sengupta,
Miss. Shreya Bhattacharyya.
. . . for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that she
has already sent a notice to Miss. Chaitali Bhattacharyya but today no one
appears to oppose this application.
The writ petitioner was appointed as Head Clerk-cum-Cashier in Calcutta Deaf
& Dumb School. After successful completion of the probationary period the
service of the writ petitioner was confirmed in the meeting of the Governing
Body held on 7th April, 1999 with effect from 25th March, 1999. Such
confirmation was informed to the petitioner by the authority by a letter dated
24th April, 1999, which has been annexed to this writ petition. The appointment
of the petitioner was approved with the scale of pay of Rs.1040-1920/-.
According to the petitioner, such scale of pay is meant for the incumbent
holding the post of Junior clerk in other sponsored Institution and is neither
appropriate nor be fitting for a person holding the post of Head clerk-cum-
cashier.
Under such circumstances, the petitioner made a representation to the School
Authority praying for higher scale of pay of Rs.4000-8850/-, corresponding to
the old scale of pay of Rs.1260-2610/-. According to the petitioner, such
prayer was also recommended by the Governing Body of the said School in its
meeting held on 16th December, 1999 and was forwarded by the Secretary to the
said School and to the Director of Mass Education Extension Directorate,
Government of West Bengal. The petitioner's prayer for higher scale of pay has
however, not been granted by the concerned authority, namely, the respondent
no.2.
It is further submitted by the petitioner that a representation dated 28th January, 2016 has been filed to the Director of Mass Education Extension Directorate, Government of West Bengal and Ex-officio Additional Secretary to 2 the Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.2 praying for grant of higher scale of pay of Rs.4000/- - 8850/- in the corresponding scale with effect from the date of his joining and to pay the current salary. It is further submitted that the petitioner is identically circumstanced with one Samir Roy, who filed a writ petition being WP 30346(W) of 2088 (Samir Roy Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). According to the petitioner, the said writ petition has been decided by the Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Bose on 16th October, 2015. From the said judgment it appears that the petitioner in the said writ petition, Samir Roy, was also the Head clerk-cum cashier in Helen Keller Badhir Vidyalaya and the said Institution is sponsored by the Directorate of Mass Education Extension and Library Services to the Government of West Bengal.
The present writ petitioner is also in identical position as that of Samir Roy. While deciding the said writ petition being WP 30346(W) of 2008 in paragraph 21 of the said judgment His Lordship held as follows;
" I accordingly, allow the writ petition and direct the respondent nos.1 and
2 to place the petitioner at per with the head clerks and cashier or in a post of any other nomenclature that may be given to employees serving in other institutes under the same Directorate, which the petitioner has claimed in substance in this writ petition. I am issuing this direction to ensure pay- parity within the same Directorate, as in my opinion, extending the relief referring to other departments or Directorates is likely to cause severe administrative difficulty. The petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of higher scale because he is an employee of an institute for physically challenged, and the other institutes of the same Directorate undertakes some other activities. In my view, though the stand of the respondents give rise to discrimination at different levels, in the given case directing pay-parity within the same Directorate would provide sufficient relief to the petitioner. Making distinction sufficient relief to the petitioner. Making distinction between sponsored and state-run institutes within the same Directorate even though the nature of duties responsibilities undertaken by the employees of both categories of the institutes remain same or similar in my opinion would be an institutes remain same or similar in my opinion would be an artificial distinction, not based on any rational or intelligible criteria. Having regard to the opinion of the Director (respondent no.2) as reflected in the two memoranda marked annexure ;P-25; and P-27; of the affidavit-in-reply, I find that the petitioner's service in Helen Keller Badhir Vidyalaya cannot be distinguished from the service of other personnel employed in other institutes 3 run by the said Directorate, which may not be serving the physically challenged."
Since the present petitioner is similarly circumstanced as that of Samir Roy, his case has already been decided by this Hon'ble Court and since the petitioner has not yet been able to place the said judgment before the respondent no.2 after making his representation on 28th January, 2016, I direct the respondent no.2 before whom the petitioner's representation praying for grant of appropriate scale of pay is pending to decide the question by passing a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to forward a copy of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16th October, 2015, passed in W.P. 30346 (W) of 2008, to the respondent no.2 within a week from date.
After the matter is decided by reasoned order the authority is directed to communicate his reasoned decision to the petitioner as early as possible. After taking such reasoned decision if the respondent no.2 finds that the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of higher scale of pay, the said authority will take appropriate steps without any further delay.
The writ application is, thus, disposed of.
(SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, J. ) 4