Recently, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the effective implementation date of the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 2009 (ROPA 2009) by a cooperative society, affirming that the society’s decision to grant benefits from August 2014 was legally valid and did not infringe upon any fundamental rights. The Court observed that the cooperative society, being an independent entity, was entitled to adopt administrative decisions based on its financial capacity and operational considerations.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a former employee of the Calcutta Corporation Cooperative Credit Society, was appointed as a Junior Clerk in 1987. After facing disciplinary proceedings that led to her dismissal, she was later reinstated in service in 2014. Following her reinstatement, the society implemented the ROPA 2009 pay structure for its employees with effect from August 2014.
The petitioner claimed entitlement to ROPA 2009 benefits from January 1, 2006, the date on which the rules came into force for Kolkata Municipal Corporation employees, and challenged the society’s decision to restrict implementation from August 2014. She also objected to a mandatory undertaking imposed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, requiring employees to clear pending work before availing the benefits.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Registrar and Deputy Registrar had no authority to curtail benefits granted under ROPA 2009 and that the learned Single Judge erred in limiting the benefits from August 2014 instead of the statutory date, January 1, 2006. It was submitted that ROPA 2009, having statutory force, entitled the petitioner to arrears and revised pay from its effective date. The petitioner further relied on Clauses 7 and 11 of ROPA 2009, asserting that denial of arrears amounted to a violation of her rights under the scheme.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents contended that the Calcutta Corporation Cooperative Credit Society was a distinct legal entity, independent of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, and therefore not automatically bound by its administrative or financial decisions. It was further submitted that the society had consciously decided to implement ROPA 2009 benefits from August 2014, in line with its financial capabilities, and that such administrative discretion could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
The respondents emphasized that the petitioner’s refusal to provide the required undertaking had also delayed her pay revision, and the society had acted in accordance with the directions of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
Observations of the Court:
The Division Bench, while concurring with the findings of the Single Judge, made detailed observations on the scope of ROPA 2009 and the administrative discretion exercised by cooperative societies. The Court clarified that while ROPA 2009 possesses statutory force, its adoption by a cooperative society does not automatically bind such societies to the same implementation timelines as government or municipal employees.
The Court noted that “ROPA 2009 is statutory in character; however, its application to an autonomous cooperative society remains an administrative act and not a statutory mandate.” The Court observed that the cooperative society, being financially independent, could validly decide the date of effect based on its economic condition and internal policy considerations.
Expounding on the petitioner’s claim for arrears, the Bench remarked, “If ROPA 2009 permits the petitioner to receive arrear salary, the petitioner will be eligible to receive the same; however, if ROPA 2009 does not provide for such arrears, the petitioner will automatically not receive them. Therefore, ROPA 2009 will be the guiding factor, which has its statutory flavour.”
The Court also examined Clauses 7 and 11 of ROPA 2009 in depth. It held that Clause 7 was inapplicable since it relates exclusively to fresh recruits appointed on or after January 1, 2006, whereas the petitioner was appointed in 1986. As for Clause 11, the Bench interpreted it to mean that the society’s decision to implement the pay revision prospectively, without granting arrears, was within its discretion, particularly given the financial implications involved.
The Bench emphasized that judicial interference in such matters must be exercised with restraint, stating that “the Court cannot substitute its own views for those of an authority competent to take an administrative decision, especially where no violation of statutory or constitutional rights has been established.”
The decision of the Court:
Concluding the matter, the High Court upheld the judgment of the Single Judge and affirmed that the society’s decision to implement ROPA 2009 from August 2014 was lawful and uniformly applicable to all employees. Finding no illegality or arbitrariness, the Bench dismissed the appeal without costs, stating that no interference was warranted with the impugned order.
Case Title: Keya Kar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Others.
Case No.: APO No. 49 of 2025
Coram: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Soumya Majumdar (Sr. Adv.)Ratikanta Pal, Afreen Begum
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Santanu Kr. Mitra (Sr. Adv.), Amartya Pal, Pradeep Kumar Roy (Sr. Adv.), Ankit Sureka, Partha Sarathi Pal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
