Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Satyabrata Mahapatra & Ors on 13 September, 2023
13.09.2023
SL No.9
Court No.8
(gc)
AST 117 of 2014
ASTA 1 of 2014 (Old No: ASTA 88 of 2014)
ASTA 2 of 2014 (Old No: ASTA 89 of 2014)
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Vs.
Satyabrata Mahapatra & Ors.
Mrs. Tapati Samanta,
...for the State appellants.
Mr. Sakti Pada Jana,
Mr. Subhajyoti Das,
...for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner.
1. Mrs. Tapati Samanta, learned Advocate
appearing for the State has given an
undertaking to file Vakalatnama by tomorrow,
i.e. 14th September, 2023.
2. On the basis of such undertaking, we permit
Mrs. Samanta to make her submission.
3. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner
acquired the Doctor of Philosophy in Science
from the Jadavpur University on 4th July,
2005 and was awarded the degree in
December, 2005 in the convocation, he is
entitled to the benefits as rightly decided in
favour of the writ petitioner by the learned
Single Judge. Moreover, it makes it clear from
the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in State
of West Bengal Vs. Chandra Bhusan
Dwivedi reported at 2019 (3) CHN (CAL) 221
that Rule 12(5) of ROPA Rules, 1998 would not
stand in the way of the writ petitioner getting
the benefit in view of the fact that the said
Rule ceased to exist on and from 1st January,
2006 by which time, the writ petitioner has
obtained degree in the convocation.
4. We are of the view that the judgment passed
by the former Hon'ble the Chief Justice
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya in WP 4532(W) of
2012 relying upon the decision of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in order to declare
that the classification which has been made by
the Government between the teachers,
acquiring Ph.D. Degree prior to 18th August,
2005 and the teachers acquired Ph.D. Degree
after 18th August, 2005 is also arbitrary and
irrational and such classification has no nexus
with the object sought to be achieved does not
call for any interference. The said decision
was rendered in the context of the Government
Order dated 5th January, 2012 that was made
applicable in order to deprive the incremental
benefits to the writ petitioner as he acquired
the degree after 18th August, 2005. The
relevant observations of the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice in this regard are reproduced below:-
"In this context, this Court is required
to consider the rationality for imposition of
such a cut-off date to exclude the claim of
such teachers who acquired Post-Doctoral
Degree after the said cut-off date. The said
cut-off date, i.e. 18th August, 2005 was
selected by the Government as the Control of
Expenditure Act, 2005 came into force with
effect from the said date, under an
impression that the grant of incremental
benefit to the teachers who acquired
Doctoral Degree after the said Act came into
operation, is prohibited under the said Act.
As such, this Court is now required to
consider as to whether the Control of
Expenditure Act, 2005 imposed any such
ban on grant of incremental benefit to the
teachers acquiring Doctoral Degree after 18th
August, 2005.
Section 14 of the said Act deals with
the pay scale of the teachers. Section 14(1)
of the said Act deals with the pay scale of
the teachers who are appointed in the post
of under-Graduate teacher category.
Similarly, sub-section 2 of Section 14 deals
with the pay scale of the teachers who are
appointed in the post of Graduate-teacher
category. Section 14(3) of the said Act deals
with the pay scale of the teachers who are
appointed in the Honours-Graduate or Post-
Graduate teacher category.
Since the petitioner was appointed in
the post of Honours Graduate teacher
category, the provision contained in Section
14(3) of the said Act is relevant for the
present purpose. As such, the provision
contained in Section 14(3) of the said Act is
set out hereunder.
Section 14(3) - Every teacher of
a school shall, if appointed in the
Honours Graduate or Post Graduate
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 the order.
The said provision indicates that
when a teacher having Honours Degree is
appointed in the Honours Graduate/Post
Graduate Degree teacher category, he will
get the pay scale admissible to the Post-
Graduate teacher, if he enhances his
qualification by acquiring Post Graduate
Degree in the manner as may be specified
by the order.
Thus on plain reading of the said
provision, this Court does not find any
restriction whereby ban was imposed on the
grant of incremental benefits to a teacher
who acquired the Doctoral Degree in the
relevant subject, after 18th August, 2005. In
fact, neither Section 14, nor any other
provision of the Act deals with the
consequence of the Doctoral Degree,
acquired by any teacher, either before or
after the enactment of the said Act of 2005.
As a matter of fact, the Joint Secretary
in his letter dated 1st September, 2011
addressed to the Director of School
appearing at page 28 of this writ petition
also expressed his view that no section of
Control of Expenditure Act, 2005 can stand
in the way of grant of drawal of such
additional increments to an Assistant
Teacher who acquired the Ph.D. Degree in
the relevant subject in terms of Clause 5
Rule 16 under Career Advancement Scheme,
laid down in ROPA, 1998.
Thus, when the Act does not impose
any restriction and/or ban on grant of such
incremental benefit to the teachers who
acquired the Doctoral Degree, the
Government by issuing the Government
order dated 5th January, 2012 cannot
impose such restriction on grant of two
additional increments to certain group of
teachers having Ph.D. Degree by selection a
cut-off date of its choice as imposition of
such ban will create sub-classification
amongst the teachers who acquired Ph.D.
Degree prior to the cut-off date and the
teachers who acquired the Ph.D. Degree
after the said cut-off date which is not only
arbitrary and irrational but also has no
nexus with the object to be achieved.
In fact, Punjab & Haryana High Court
in the case of State of Haryana etc. - vs.-
Smt. Nirmala Mittal, reported in 2008(5) SLR,
page 177 did not approve the Government's
idea for giving two different scales of pay to
the teachers appointed with Ph.D. Degree
and teachers acquired Ph.D. Degree after
getting appointment by creating sub-
classification amongst the teachers standing
on the same footing only by referring to the
date of confinement of Doctoral Degree on
them. Such classification was held to be
arbitrary and irrational as it has no nexus
with object to be achieved.
Thus, by following the principle laid
down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in the said decision, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the classification
which was been made by the Government
between the teachers, acquiring Ph.D.
Degree prior to 18th August, 2005 and the
teachers acquired Ph.D. Degree after 18th
August, 2005 is also arbitrary and irrational
inasmuch as, such classification has no
nexus with the object to be achieved. As
such, the Government Order dated 5th
January, 2012 whereby ban was imposed
on the grant of incremental benefits to the
teachers acquiring Ph.D. Degree after 18th
August, 2005 cannot be retained on record.
The said Government order dated 5th
January, 2012 is, thus, quashed."
5. In the instant case, he was qualified on 4th
July, 2005 prior to 18th August, 2005 which is
a relevant consideration ignored by the
Government Order dated 5th January, 2012.
6. We record our concurrence with the reasons
and the observation made by Justice
Bhattacharya in WP 4532(W) of 2012 decided
on 4th July, 2012 in the facts of the case.
7. Accordingly, the appeal and the application
stand dismissed.
8. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual
undertaking.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
