The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Ar Surya Sekhar Pal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6130 Cal

08      13.9.2023                     AST 116 of 2014
                                                with
Ct-08                      I.A No. AST 1 of 2014(Old No. ASTA 79 of 2014)
                              CAN 2 of 2014(Old No. ASTA 80 of 2014)

                                 The State of West Bengal & Ors.
                                               Vs.
ar                                  Surya Sekhar Pal & Ors.

                        Ms. Tapati Samanta
                                        ... For the Appellants/State


                        1.

Ms. Tapati Samanta, learned counsel

representing the appellants, has submitted that

the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief in

view of the judgment of a coordinate bench in

State of West Bengal Vs. Chandra Bhusan

Dwivedi, reported in 2019(3) CHN (CAL) 221.

Our attention is drawn to paragraphs 10 and 11

of the said judgment which are reproduced

below:-

"10. The petitioner was pressing his claim on the basis of Rule 12(5) of ROPA 1998. All that the petitioner is required to satisfy is that clause had made him entitled to ask for two additional increments when the doctorate degree was awarded to him. In the present case, the convocation was held on December 15, 2006, by that time ROPA 1998 has ceased to be in operation. ROPA 2009 which later on came to be effective with effect from January 1, 206 does not contain any such provision of law.

11. Rule 12(5) of ROPA 1998 entitles the holder of a doctorate degree to ask for the benefit of two additional increments from

the date of convocation when the convocation was held ROPA 1998 had ceased to exist. Without a corresponding provision in the new ROPA a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated April 5, 2019 in the case of State of West Bengal & Others vs. Goutam Ghosh and Others (FMA 2368 of 2015) observed that since the Rule had ceased to exist on the day the degree was awarded the petitioner must be held to be ineligible to the benefit claimed by him under ROPA 1998."

2. It appears that the writ petitioner was

qualified for the degree of Doctorate in

Philosophy (Ph.D) on 8th October, 2010 and the

convocation was held on 27th April, 2012. Even

if we assume that the date of qualification for the

degree can be taken into consideration even then

in view of the fact that by that time ROPA 1990

had ceased to be in operation and ROPA 2009

which came later was made effective with

retrospective effect from January 01, 2006 the

reliefs could not have been extended to the

petitioner. However, in absence of the petitioner,

we do not wish to dispose of the appeal. We feel

that the writ petitioner is required to be heard.

3. We direct the department to serve

administrative notice upon the writ petitioner

within one week from date with an intimation

that this matter shall appear in the list after

three weeks.

4. In the event the writ petitioner is not

represented on the adjourned date, we may

dispose of the appeal on the basis of available

records.

5. The matter stands adjourned for three

weeks.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury,J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)