Sri Kamaleswar Mukhopadhyay @ ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 December, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sri Kamaleswar Mukhopadhyay @ ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 December, 2017

Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty

                                            1


   21.12.2017
   Item No.24
       ad
                               W.P 22793(W) of 2017

                  Sri Kamaleswar Mukhopadhyay @ Mukherjee
                                      Vs.
                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sufi Kamal,
Mrs. Ranjana Har Chowdhury
                     ...     For the petitioner

Md. Yasin Ali,
Ms. Tapati Samanta              ...       For the State


      Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

      Mr. Kamal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was appointed to the post of Accountant at Helen Keller Badhir

Vidyalaya (in short the said school) and was placed in the sale of pay of

Rs.3350/- to Rs.6325/- as per the Revision of Pay & Allowances Rules, (in short

ROPA), 1998. Though the petitioner has the required qualification and is

discharging the same duties as that of a Head Clerk/Head Clerk-cum-Cashier or

Head Clerk-cum-Accountant/U.D Assistant/Cashier, he has not been extended

the benefits of the scale of pay of Rs.4000/- to Rs.8850/- as per ROPA 1998 and

the revised scale of pay of Rs.7,100/- to Rs.37,600/- being enjoyed by the said

employees in similar institutions.

      Aggrieved   thereby,   the     petitioner   approached   the   respondents   for

consideration of his claim by a letter dated 12th May, 2017, inter alia, praying for grant of the scale of pay of Rs.4000/- to Rs.8850/- as per ROPA 1998 and the revised pay scale of Rs.7,100/- to Rs.37,600/- as per ROPA 2009. The said 2 representation was also forwarded by the respondent no.4 to the respondent no.2 but no final decision has yet been taken by the said respondent no.2.

He further submits that in similar matters this Court has extended such benefits to persons similarly situated with the petitioner. In support of such contention he has placed reliance upon an unreported order dated 16th October, 2015 in the case of Shri Samir Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., in W.P 30346(W) of 2008.

Mr. Ali, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, however, disputes the contention of the petitioner.

Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be relegated to the respondent no.3 for taking a final decision as regards claim of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12th May, 2017 and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to communicate the said order to the petitioner.

The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and all points are kept open to be decided by the respondent no.2.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)