[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Halsana Washim Raja vs The State Of West Bengal&Ors on 17 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Ct.55117.06.25
Item No.23Sws.M
WPA 17503 of 2022
Halsana Washim Raja
Vs
The State of West Bengal&Ors.
Mr. Sakti Pada Jana
Mr. Subhajyoti Das
...for the petitioner
Ms. Kakali Naskar
...for the State
1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated March
10, 2022 passed by the District Inspector of
Schools (Secondary Education), Murshidabad
(hereafter „the DI‟) whereby the DI has declined the
petitioner‟s request for Post Graduate Scale of Pay
on the ground asthat the petitioner has been
appointed through the West Bengal School Service
Commission, the petitioner‟s pay was required to
be fixed in terms of the petitioner‟s qualification
mentioned by the West Bengal School Service
Commission in terms of the provision of G.O. No.
155-SE (B) dated 13.07.1999.
3. The petitioner joined Sarbangapur J.K.S.A.
Vidyapith (H.S.) as Assistant Teacher in
Mathematics on September 15, 2007. At the
2
material point of time when the petitioner joined
the school, the petitioner was holding a degree of
Bachelor of Science (withHonors in Mathematics).
4. On or about August 5, 2007, i.e. just prior to
joining service in the school, the petitioner had
enrolled in the Master‟s Degree Course in
Mathematics in Netaji Subhas Open University.
5. While in service, the petitioner sought the
permission of the Managing Committee for the
purpose of pursuing such higher degree course.
The Managing Committee of the school adopted a
resolution on December 19, 2007 thereby
approving the petitioner‟spursuitfor such higher
degree course and thereafter forwarded such
resolution to the DI under the cover of a letter
dated March 19, 2008, thereby requesting the DI to
take necessary action in the matter of granting
prior permission to the petitioner "to sit for M.Sc.
(Math) Examination under Netaji Subhas Open
University." The DI of Schools did not respond to
such communication made by the Managing
Committee.
6. The petitioner, however continued with the
Master‟s Degree Course and ultimately obtained
the degree of Master of Science in Mathematics
upon having successfully qualified in the Part II
examination therefor, held in the year 2009.
3
Subsequently, the School made another request by
its letter dated June 12, 20212 to the DI requesting
the said DI to grant permission and approve
payment of higher scale of pay to the petitioner
pursuant to the petitioner having acquired Master‟s
Degree in Mathematics. The said DI remained
silent even on such representation.
7. The petitioner thereafter made a representation to
the DI through his learned advocate. The DI of
Schools remained inactive even then.
8. The School thereafter followed up by two
representations dated October 10, 2018 and March
24, 2021 both of which met with the same fate as
that of the earlier ones.
9. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the
respondent/DI the petitioner approached this
Court by filing WPA 13773 of 2021 which was
disposed of by this Court by an order dated
September 7, 2021 thereby directing the said DI to
pass a reasoned order on the petitioner‟s
representation in the form of demand justice of the
petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of communication of the order.
10. Upon such order being passed in WPA 13773 of
2021 the said DI took up the petitioner‟s case and
disposed of the same by the order dated March 10,
2022, observing as follows:
4
“Let me now consider as to whether the
petitioner acquired the said Post Graduate
Degree in the manner as specified by the Govt.
Order. The petitioner joined as Assistant
Teacher with qualification B.Sc. (Hons.) in
Mathematics through concerned School Service
Commission on 15.09.2007 and that material
point of time his pay was regulated under
provision of ROPA, 98 and it is required to
mention the relevant portion of Govt. orders
which is applicable in the instant case in
arriving to a specific conclusion.
The provision of G.O. No. 155-SE (B) dt.
13.07.1999 which is arising out of from ROPA
1998 lays down that……If a teacher is
appointed through West Bengal School Service
Commission, his/her pay will be fixed in the
scale of pay as per his/her qualification
mentioned by the West Bengal School Service
Commission. As the concerned School Service
Commission recommended the petitioner for
Hons. Category teacher by mentioning only
Hons. Degree hence I am of the opinion that as
the aforesaid Govt. order stands as bar to
approve the claim of the petitioner thus the
prayer of the petitioner is rejected. Thus the
matter is disposed of from this end in
compliance with the order of the Hon’ble High
Court.”
11. Mr. Jana, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the Government Order
dated July 13, 1999 which has been relied on by
the DI is wholly inapplicable to the petitioner‟s
case. He invites the attention of the Court to a
5
subsequent Notification dated June 3, 2002 and
submits that the Notification dated July 13, 1999
relied on by the DI stood amended by the
subsequent Notification of June 3, 2002. He
further submits that the petitioner‟s case in fact
would be covered by the order No. 1595-SE(S)
dated December 26, 2005 and presses clause „C‟
thereof.
12. Mr. Jana further submits that the order passed by
the DI of Schools cannot withstand even a
moment‟s scrutiny in view of several judgments of
this Court. He submits that when in the instant
case the Managing Committee of the school has
approved the petitioner‟s pursuit of higher
qualification and also recommended the
petitioner‟s case for grant of higher scale of pay to
the D.I. the petitioner‟s claim could not have been
rejected at all. He relies on the judgment passed by
the Hon‟ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Utpal Kanti Karan vs. State of West Bengal
reported at 2024 SCC Online (Cal) 1274 to
buttress his such submission.
13. Mr. Jana also refers to a Division Bench
Judgment of this Court in the case of Akhtar
Hossain Chowdhury vs. State of West Bengal &
Ors. reported at 2013(2) CHN (Cal) 632 and
6
submits that upon the ratio of the said judgment
being approved by the Hon‟ble Full Bench of this
Court the case of Utpal Kanti Karan (supra), since
the DI has maintained silence despite repeated
representations and follow ups by the school
authority eventhe requirement of prior permission
of the DI of Schools for the purpose of pursuing
higher education should be deemed to have been
met by the petitioner in the case at hand.
14. Mr. Jana submits that the judgment of Utpal
Kanti Karan (supra) rendered by the Hon‟ble Full
Bench of this Court has taken note of the
Government Order dated December 26, 2005 and
that the petitioner‟s case is fully covered by the
said Government Order. Mr. Jana further submits
that since the petitioner has been appointed to the
post of Assistant Teacher in the school on
September 15, 2007, West Bengal Schools (Control
of Expenditure Act), 2005 (hereafter the said Act of
2005) had come into force, the petitioner‟s case
could not be said to be governed by the G.O. dated
July 13, 1999 as amended by the circular dated
June 3, 2002.
15. Learned advocate appearing for the State hands
up a copy of Memo No. 479-H dated May 16, 2025
issued by the DI to the said learned advocate
whereby the DI has obviously, reiterated what has
7
been stated in the order dated March 10, 2022
impugned in the writ petition. The said Memo is
taken on record.
16. Mr. Jana also relies on the following judgments of
this Court in support of his submissions :-
1. Amlan Singha vs. The State of West Bengal
&Ors. (WPA 16288 of 2024)dated July 2,
2024;
2. Partha Pratim De vs. The State of West Bengal
&Ors. (WPA 947 of 2020)dated January 17,
2025;
3. Arman Ali Mondal vs. The State of West
Bengal &Ors. (WPA 4092 of 2020) dated
March 12, 2025;
4. Moumita Bhattacharjee vs. The State of West
Bengal &Ors. (WPA 14018 of 2021) dated
June 10, 2025;
17. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties and having considered the
material on record this Court is of the view that the
order dated March 10, 2022 passed by the DI
which has been impugned in this writ petition
cannot be sustained.
18. Firstly, the said order bases itself on the G.O.
dated July 13, 1999 which, as has been rightly
pointed out by Mr. Jana, is not at all applicable to
the petitioner. This Court is of the view that since
the petitioner had been appointed to the post of
Assistant Teacher in the school on September 15,
2007, by which time the said Act of 2005 had come
8
into operation, the Government Order dated
December 26, 2005 which had been issued in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 14(3) of the
said Act of 2005 would govern the petitioner‟s case
for higher scale of pay on the ground of
enhancement of qualification.
19. The judgment of the Hon‟ble Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Utpal Kanti Karan
(supra),serves as a guiding light in the present
case. Paragraph 185 thereof is relevant for the
present purpose and the same is extracted
hereinbelow:
185. A teacher with Honours Graduate degree shall be
entitled to post graduate scale of pay upon acquiring
a post graduate degree without there being a
requirement of any prior permission as the Honours
graduate and post graduate degree under Sections
14(3) of the Act of 2005 read with the Government
Order no. 1595-SE(S) dated 26th December, 2005
are treated alike.The justification is stated in
the Government Order no. 735-SE(S)/SP-
132/2022 dated 3rd June, 2002. The Government
Order no. 1595-SE-(s) dated 26th December, 2005
will have prospective effect. Clause 9 of
the Government Order no. 593-SE(B) dated
27th November, 2007 shall not be a bar. All teachers
who are otherwise covered by the earlier regulations
and/or notification and/or orders issued under West
9
Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 and
scale of pay has been fixed and/or revised shall
continue to receive such benefits and shall not be
deprived of any financial benefit solely based on the
Government Order dated 27th November, 2007 since
the said order in any event can only be applied
prospectively. Any teacher pursuing higher education
prior to the introduction of Control of Expenditure Act,
2005 shall be entitled to ex post facto approval for a
higher scale of pay provided the Managing Committee
has granted permission and the staff pattern permits
a teacher with higher qualification in the relevant
subject, on the basis of the Government Order dated
3rd June, 2002 as revised by the Circular dated
3rd March, 2004.(Emphasis supplied by underlining)
20. Thus once it is found that the Government Order
dated December 26, 2005 applies, the entitlement
of the petitioner becomes almost certain in view of
the underlined observations of the Hon‟ble Full
Bench in the case of Utpal Kanti Karan (supra).
21. Since the DI has not rejected the petitioner‟s claim
on the ground of non-obtainment of prior
permission, this Court is not delving deep into that
aspect except observing that in the facts of the
present case such ground would not be available to
the DI. Firstly, since this Court has held that the
case of the petitioner is governed by the
Government Order dated December 26, 2005, that
10
itself would protect the petitioner‟s case from the
clutches of the Government Order dated
27th November, 2007 that mandated taking of prior
permission of the DI. Secondly, since in the case at
hand the petitioner had duly applied to the
Managing Committee for prior permission and the
same had been forwarded and recommended to the
DI by the Managing Committee of the School
therefore, the requirement of taking prior
permission would be deemed to have been met.
Such are the observations of the Hon‟ble Full
Bench in the judgment of Utpal Kanti Karan
(supra)which approved the ratio of the Hon‟ble
Division Bench in the case of Akhtar Hossain
Chowdhury (supra) in the following extract:
xvii) In Akhtar Hossain Chowdhury v. State of
West Bengal, reported in (2013) 2 CHN 632 the
argument of Mr. Moitra that paragraph 3 of the
circular dated 27th November, 2007 cannot override
the provisions of the West Bengal Schools (Control of
Expenditure Act, 2005) was accepted as would be
evident from paragraphs 15 to 18 of the said
decision. The said paragraphs read:
“15. Mr. Moitra also submits that Para 3 of the
aforesaid circular dated 27th November, 2007 cannot
override the provisions of the West Bengal Schools
(Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005.
16.Mr. Moitra invites our attention to Section 14
(3) of the aforesaid Act, 2005 and submits that the
appellant/petitioner is entitled to draw pay of post
11graduate upon acquiring post graduate degree. The
said section 14(3) is set out hereunder:
“(3) Every teacher of a school shall, if appointed in
the Honours Graduate or Postgraduate teacher
category, be entitled to draw pay of Post-graduate
teacher category, upon acquiring Post-graduate
degree, in the manner as may be specified by order.”
17. It is true that a circular cannot override the
specific provisions of the Act. In the present case, the
appellant/petitioner was admittedly appointed in the
school as Honours Graduate with B.Ed degree. As a
matter of fact, at the time of joining the school
qualification of the appellant was Honours Graduate
in Mathematics and B.Ed. Subsequently the said
appellant acquired postgraduate degree. Therefore, in
terms of Section 14(3) of The West Bengal Act, XIV of
2005 appellant herein is entitled to draw pay of
postgraduate teacher. Furthermore, Para 3 of the
Office order dated 27th November, 2007 has not been
specifically violated in the present case since the
appellant also sought for prior permission from the
concerned District Inspector of Schools for undergoing
post graduate studies through the managing
committee of the school and such permission was
never denied by the said District Inspector of Schools.
18. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the
opinion that the District Inspector of Schools should
not have rejected the claim of the appellant/petitioner
for higher scale of pay even after acquiring higher
qualification i.e. M.Sc in Mathematics.”
(emphasis supplied)
We are in agreement with the said decision.”
22. In such view of the matter, the order dated March
10, 2022 passed by the District Inspector of
12
Schools (Secondary Education), Murshidabad is set
aside. The said District Inspector of Schools is
directed to extend the benefits of Post-graduate
Scale of Pay to the writ petitioner and to take steps
to make payment of all consequential benefits to
the petitioner in terms of the petitioner‟s
entitlement to such Post graduate scale of Pay
forthwith, strictly in accordance with law.
23. WPA 17503 of 2022 stands allowed as above.
24. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
25. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.
(Om Narayan Rai , J.)
[ad_2]
Source link