Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Parimal Debnath & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 August, 2013
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1
ar 02.8.201 WP 23917(w) of 2012
3 with
01 WP 21358(w) of 2013
Parimal Debnath & Ors.
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay
Ms. Basabi Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Shamit Sanyal
... For the Petitioners in both
the writ petitions
Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta
... For U.G.C in both the
writ petitions
Mr. Sovanlal Hazra
Mr. Debabrata Roy
... For Jadavpur University in
both the writ petitions
Mr. Samim Ul Bari
... For the State in both
the writ petitions
Two of the three petitioners in WP 23917(w)
of 2013 are members of the teaching faculty of
the Jadavpur University, while one of then, the
petitioner no. 1 has already superannuated.
In WP 21358(w) of 2013, the two petitioners
are a Teachers' Association of the Jadavpur
University and their Secretary. In this writ
petition, the first petitioner, being the
Association claim to be registered under the
2
Societies Registration Act and they seek to
espouse the cause of their members, being the
teaching staff of that university.
In both these proceedings, primarily the
petitioners seek implementation of a scheme of
revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadre
in universities and colleges formulated by the
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Department of Higher Education, Government of
India under memorandum no. 1-32/2006-
U.II/U.I(I)dated 31st December, 2008. This
memorandum is addressed to the University
Grants Commission (U.G.C) and it records that
the said scheme has been formulated upon
consideration of the recommendations of the said
Commission. The scheme mainly deals with
upward revision of pay of teaching staff in
colleges and universities. It is not in dispute
that the State Government has also accepted the
said scheme so far as upward revision of pay is
concerned.
Subsequent to formulation of the said
scheme, it appears that on different issues
relating to implementation of the scheme, there
have been deliberation amongst the Central
Government, State Government and the U.G.C.
The disputes in these two writ petitions relate to
3
clearance of arrear dues on account of upward
revision of pay, the burden of which is being
shared by the Central Government and the State
Government. The share of the State Government
is 20% of the post-revision arrears, whereas the
Central Government is to bear 80% of the same.
No one, however, appears on behalf of the
Central Government. Two ministries of the
Central Government, Ministry of Human
Resources Development and Department of
Higher Education are parties to both these
proceedings through their Secretaries/Joint
Secretaries. No affidavit has been filed by the
respondents except the State respondents in W.P
23917(w) of 2012. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the parties have agreed to disposal of these two writ petitions, and none of the respondents has asked for further time to file affidavit. It is admitted position that at present the petitioners or the members of the faculty, whose interest the petitioners in WP 21358(w) of 2013 seek to represent, are getting their pay as per the said scheme. The arrears appear to be for a five year period pertaining to the part of the dues to be 4 borne by the Central Government. This is the relief for which the petitioners have pressed in these two proceedings at the time of hearing. This issue however is not res integra any more, and an Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in WPST 210 of 2012 (Binoy Bhushon Chakraborty & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) decided on 13th May, 2013 has observed:-
"22. There is no dispute that the petitioners are entitled to a revision of their pay scales as recommended by the U.G.C. There is also no dispute that the State Government has paid the arrears for the year 2009- 2010. The only question which, therefore, arises is whether the arrears from 2006 to 2009, for which period admittedly the State Government has paid almost its entire share of the liability, have to be paid in the first instance by the State Government and thereafter secure the reimbursement from the Central Government. As we have noted earlier, there is no mention about the modality of payment in the Scheme itself; the modalities were to be decided later. The word "reimbursement" has been used for 5 the first time on 11th May, 2010 in the communication sent by the Central Government to the State Government. By then the State Government had already paid a part of its share of the arrears of 20%.
In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Government in WP 23917(w) of 2012, a copy of a memorandum issued by the State Government has been annexed as R-1/4. In this memorandum dated 27th February, 2009 originating from the Principal Secretary of the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department addressed to the Director of Public Instruction, West Bengal it has been recorded :-
" I am directed to refer to the letter No. 1- 32/2006-U, if/U.I(I) dated 31.12.2008 of the Department of the Higher Education in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India on the Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges in conformity with the revision of pay scales of Central Govt. employees on the recommendation of Sixth Central Pay Commission followed by the UGC notification/guidelines as issued from time to time. The Governor, after careful consideration of the matter, is pleased to introduce the revised pay structure of the 6 Prncipals, teachers, librarians, physical instructor/instructress of Government colleges of West Bengal appointed in their respective posts with corresponding Pay Band and Academic Grade Pay (AGP) with effect from 01.01.2006.
The revised pay structure is applicable only to the Principal, Teachers, Librarians, Physical Instructor/Instructress of Government Colleges in West Bengal who have been in such positions on 1/1/2006 or thereafter having been appointed as such on regular and whole time basis against sanctioned posts.
Norms of pay fixation alongwith admissible allowances, modalities of
payment of arrear and related matters towards the implementation of the scheme of revision of pay are being notified separately. This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their U.O No. Group-P(Service) 698 dtd. 27.02.2009. The Accountant General, West Bengal, is being informed.
Mr. Sovanlal Hazra, learned counsel appearing for the Jadavpur University submits that this memorandum relates to the revision of 7 pay which is subject matter of controversy in this proceeding and the actual fixation has also been made. The Hon'ble Division Bench, in the judgment referred to above directed :- "25. We direct the State Government to pay the petitioners the balance 20% of arrears payable by the State Government within six weeks from today. The amount of Rs.53,19,301/- shall be paid by the State Government after receiving the reimbursement from the Central Government in accordance with the proposal sent already. We direct the Central Government to consider the proposal of the State Government which is pending with it within two months. The Central Government shall release the finds in accordance with the proposal to the State Government, if it is found in order, within one month thereafter. On receipt of payment of 80% of the arrears, the State Government shall first disburse the amount to the petitioners within four weeks of its receipt. The larger issue as to whether the Central Government was required to release the amount first to the State Government for it to disburse the same to the 8 employees or whether it could reimburse the amount is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
In these two petitions, it is not in dispute that the State Government has already sent the proposal upon quantifying the same. From annexure R-1/15 of the said affidavit-in- opposition, I find a memorandum issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in which it has been recorded that the State has disbursed its arrear dues and in annexure R-I/18, another memorandum originating on 23rd November, 2012 from the same authority, computation has been made in respect of dues, the clearance of which has become obligation of the of the dues of the Central Government.
In these two writ petitions, I do not think that there is any scope of entering into an arithmetical exercise as the basic mode of computation stands admitted by all the involved parties. There is a Division Bench judgment of this Court on the same point involving another set of teaching staff of different institutions, in which directions have been issued, which have been reproduced in the earlier part of this 9 judgment.
In the given context, in my opinion, right of the petitioners or the persons whose cause the petitioners in W.P 21358(w) of 2013 are espousing, to receive the arrear dues in the manner directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench stand crystallized in the form of legal right. I am of opinion that the Central Government ought to consider the proposal of the State Government within the same length of time prescribed in the said judgment in WPST 210 of 2012 (Binoy Bhushon Chakraborty & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) of the Hon'ble Division Bench, i.e two months. The Central Government thereafter shall release the fund in accordance with the proposal of the State Government, if the same is found to be in order within one month thereafter. On receipt of payment of 80% of the arrears, the State Government shall first disburse the amount to the petitioners within four weeks of its receipt. In the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the question as to whether the Central Government was required to release the amount first to the Sate Government for it to disburse the same to the employees or whether it could 10 reimburse the amount, was described as the "larger issue" and the same was left to be decided in an appropriate case. Before me, none of the parties has raised this "larger issue".
Accordingly, I follow the same course the Hon'ble Division Bench has pursued and leave that question to be determined in an appropriate case.
I dispose of both the writ petitions in the above terms.
There shall, however be, no order as costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of usual formalities.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.) 11