Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Kamal Krishna Das vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 January, 2015
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
(107)
19.01.2015
(k.c. & p.j.)
MAT 1159 of 2013
With
CAN 7930 of 2013 (stay)
Dr. Kamal Krishna Das
-Versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Miss. Indrani Pal ... for the appellant
Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Moloy Roy ... for the State-respondents
In 1996 the appellant applied for prior permission for his research work. The school authority granted him permission. There was no contemporary law obliging him to inform the District Inspector of Schools (SE). In 2007 while his research work was not complete, Govt. issued a circular to the extent, District Inspector of Schools (SE) must be informed. The appellant did not inform him. He now prays for additional increments for his Ph.D. Degree that he got through his research work in 2008. The authority denied him on the ground, there was no prior permission. The learned Judge accepted the contention of the authority. His Lordship, by the judgment and order impugned, mainly relied on the Govt. Circulars that would require him to obtain appropriate permission. His Lordship observed, the District Inspector of Schools (SE) could not have any scope to consider whether for pursuing his Ph.D. Degree the regular teaching would be hampered or not. His Lordship also observed, 2007 Circular was very much relevant for the purpose and non-compliance of the same would be fatal. Hence, this appeal. 2 We have heard Miss Indrani Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the State. Ms Pal would submit, neither the 2007 Circular nor the Expenditure Act, 2005 would have any application in the instant case since he started his research work in 1998 after obtaining necessary permission from the school authority. The school authority permitted him to do so without hampering the regular teaching. There is no allegation, teaching hampered. There was no obligation to inform the State. Hence, there is no reason that he should not be given the benefit of additional increments that the Ph.D. Degree holder is entitled to get. Per contra, Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury would submit, it is true, in 1998 there was no such obligation. However, once the 2007 Circular came into force, it was incumbent upon the appellant to inform the District Inspector of Schools (SE), particularly when his research work was not complete by that time. He would pray for dismissal of the appeal. We have considered the rival contentions. In 1996 there was no obligation on the part of the concerned teacher to inform the D.I. of Schools. He obtained the permission of the school and started the work without hampering the teaching activities. It is true, he did not inform the D.I. of Schools in 2007, neither the 2005 Act nor the 2007 Circular would clearly make such provision. We have carefully perused, we do not find so.
In our view, the appellant is entitled to the benefits. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order impugned is set aside.
The appellant is permitted to enjoy the benefits of additional increments for his Ph.D. qualification on and from March 11, 2008 being the date of convocation that the State would extend.
3
With these directions we dispose of the appeal along with the application without any order as to costs.
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
( Banerjee, J.) (Samapti Chatterjee, J.)