Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rkd Kamal Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 August, 2022
W.P.A. 4361 of 2021
ML- 18.08.2022
342 Ct.15
rkd Kamal Pal
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bikram Banerjee,
Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta,
Ms. Dipa Acharyya,
Mr. Arka Nandi
....for the petitioner.
Mr. Ranjan Saha
....for the State.
Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher who was
appointed in a Government aided recognized school
on 15th February, 2001. At the time of his
appointment petitioner was not having B.Ed
qualification. As per norms petitioner was required
to obtain B.Ed qualification within five years from
the date of his appointment.
Petitioner enjoyed consecutive four
incremental benefits till the year of 2005 but not
for acquiring B.Ed qualification the increment of
the petitioner was stopped from 1st February, 2006
to 1st February, 2007 as per ROPA 1998 rules.
However, while fixing pay of the petitioner under
ROPA 2009 rules the incremental benefits which
was not allowed to the petitioner from 1st February,
2006 to 1st February, 2007 was granted in
consideration of acquiring B.Ed qualification in
2007. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the writ
2
petition that though petitioner took admission in
B.Ed course for the sessions 2005-2006 but the
examination was held in 2007 and the result was
published in the same year.
According to the petitioner in terms of
Government order dated 30th July, 2009 he is
entitled to get the incremental benefits
uninterruptedly notwithstanding obtainment of
B.Ed qualification within five years from the date of
his appointment since it has been provided in the
said Government order dated 30th July, 2009 that
due to pendency of Court cases within the
stipulated time of five years teachers could not
complete B.Ed course. It was also provided therein
that as one time measure the benefit of increments
in connection with B.Ed degree was allowed to the
teachers upto 2012.
In addition thereto reliance has been placed
by the petitioner on an unreported judgment dated
10th March, 2022 passed by this Court on WPA
4813 of 2018 (Smt. Pali Bhowmick-vs- The State of
West Bengal & Ors.). It has been submitted that
this Court while disposing of the writ petition by
order dated 10th March, 2022 granted the
incremental benefits in spite of not having B.Ed
degree during the relevant period in consideration
3
of the said Government order dated 30th July,
2009.
Lastly, it has been submitted that the
objection raised by the Assistant Director of
Accounts at page 44 of the writ petition against
grant of incremental benefits from 1st February,
2006 to 1st February, 2007 is not tenable in view of
the said Government order dated 30th July, 2009
and for extending the benefit of 18 years
continuous service there is no need to recast pay of
the petitioner on withdrawal on such incremental
benefits for the period from 1st February, 2006 to
1st February, 2007 since petitioner was entitled to
enjoy the same in accordance with law.
Accordingly, petitioner has prayed for extension of
18 years service benefits in his favour without
interfering with the sanction of incremental benefits
for the said period from 1st February, 2006 to 1st
February, 2007.
Mr. Saha, learned advocate appears on
behalf of the respondents and has defended the
observations/objections raised by the Assistant
Director of Accounts in the matter of grant of 18
years service benefits to the petitioner. On placing
reliance on the report filed on behalf of the State
respondents it has been submitted in reference to
one letter dated 31st August, 2021 of the Assistant
Director of Accounts addressed to the District
Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata that benefit of
Government order dated 30th July, 2009 is
available to those teachers who were unable to
complete their B.Ed course during last three years
preceding the date of issuance of said Government
order dated 30th July, 2009. According to the State
respondents since the period of five years
completed on 14th February, 2006 therefore the
petitioner is not entitled to get the incremental
benefits relating to B.Ed degree for the period of 1st
February, 2006 to 1st February, 2007.
This Court has heard the learned advocates
representing the parties and perused the pleadings
exchanged by the parties including the materials
available on record.
Since the petitioner was appointed in the
post of Assistant Teacher on 15th February, 2001
and completed B.Ed course for the session 2005-
2006, this Court does not find any impediment in
granting the benefit of Government order dated 30th
July, 2009. By the said Government order dated
30th July, 2009, it has been unequivocally provided
that due to pendency of Court cases for last three
years the teachers were unable to even get
themselves admitted to the B.Ed course in the
colleges approved by the NCTE and therefore as
one time measure the relaxation relating to
acquiring B.Ed qualification within a period of five
years from the date of appointment was granted
upto 2012.
The stand taken by the State respondents
as it emanates from the report filed in the form of
affidavit cannot be countenanced since it has been
interpreted in a way which has not been
contemplated in the said Government order dated
30th July, 2009. Attempt has been made to confine
the benefit of the Government order dated 30th
July, 2009 to only those teachers who were unable
to complete their B.Ed in last three years preceding
the date of issuance of said Government order
dated 30th July, 2009 as it appears.
In addition thereto, this Court on previous
occasion by passing order dated 10th March, 2022
on a writ petition being WPA 4813 of 2018 (Smt.
Pali Bhowmick -vs- The State of West Bengal &
Ors.) has already granted identical benefit in favour
of the teacher based on the said Government order
dated 30th July, 2009 in spite of the fact that
teacher was unable to obtain B.Ed qualification
within the period of five years.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the
objections raised by the Assistant Director of
Accounts being the respondent no.8 as it appears
from page 44 of the writ petition stand set aside.
The concerned respondent authorities are
directed to extend 18 years service benefit to the
petitioner without interfering with the incremental
benefit which has been granted to the petitioner for
the period from 1st February, 2006 to 1st February,
2007 within a period of eight weeks from the date
of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order,
if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual
undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)
