Calcutta High Court

Keya Kar vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 24 September, 2025

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

APO No. 49 of 2025

Keya Kar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Others.

For the appellant : Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ratikanta Pal, Adv.
Ms. Afreen Begum, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Santanu Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amartya Pal, Adv.

For the Registrar of : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Roy, Sr. Adv.
Co-operative Society Mr. Ankit Sureka, Adv.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 02.09.2025

Judgment on : 24.09.2025

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated

January 17, 2025 passed in WPO No. 542 of 2015.
2

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB
2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge disposed of the

writ application being WPO No. 542 of 2015 with certain directions

that is to say:

"22. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, the
Respondent No. 7, being the Employer Cooperative society shall

calculate the dues of the petitioner able to her on and from August, 2014 till her date of retirement in accordance with ROPA, 2009 according to law. Taking the cut-off date as August 1, 2014 if it is found from records that any arrear is due and payable to the petitioner in terms of ROPA, 2009, the same shall also be calculated and determined. On the basis of such calculations the entire amount including the arrears as directed herein, if any, shall be paid to the petitioner by Respondent No. 7 along with interest @ 5% per annum since August 1, 2014 till August 3, 2016 and then from August 3, 2016 till the date of actual tendering of the amount to the petitioner after deducting the amount on account of salaries and benefits already paid.

23. It is also noted that, in the event from records it appears to the Respondent No. 7 that all other employees, who were similarly placed as that of the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of ROPA, 2009 since January 1, 2006, then the pay fixation of petitioner shall also be done accordingly.

24. The entire exercise directed above for calculation of dues and making of payment to the petitioner shall be completed by Respondent No. 7 positively within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order."

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Single

Judge erred in law by not considering the fact that neither Registrar

nor the Deputy Registrar had the authority to curtail the benefits

flowing from ROPA, 2009.

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB

4. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the

petitioner was entitled to the benefits of ROPA, 2009 on and from

January 1, 2006. There was no reason to allow such benefits to the

petitioner with effect from a later date i.e. August 1, 2014. According

to learned advocate for the petitioner, the rights of the petitioner for

an enhanced salary were bestowed on the basis of ROPA, 2009. The

effective date, according to ROPA, 2009, was January 1, 2006. No

reason was assigned by learned Single Judge for holding the petitioner

to be entitled to the benefits of ROPA, 2009 from August 1, 2014.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the

learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the provisions of

Rule - I and Rule II Clause 2 (a) of ROPA, 2009 pertaining to Kolkata

Municipal Corporation whereby the petitioner has been prevented

from the full benefits of ROPA, 2009 which she was entitled to.

6. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondents

submitted that although, Respondent No. 7 generally followed the

actions of Kolkata Municipal Corporation with regard to the service

conditions and pay structure of its employees, nevertheless, the

Calcutta Corporation Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. is a separate

legal entity and is not bound by the decisions taken by the Kolkata

Municipal Corporation. It is well within its rights to take independent

decisions with regard to the service benefits and emoluments of its

employees.

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB

7. Learned advocate for the respondents also submitted that

following the guidelines adopted by the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation, the respondent authorities have agreed to grant the

benefits of ROPA 2009 to its employees with effect from the month of

August 2014. Such decision on the part of respondents does not

violate the provisions of Rule 7 or Rule 11 of the ROPA Rules of the

Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The administrative decision not to

grant arrears of salary upon revision of pay cannot be faulted.

8. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk by the Board of

Directors of the respondent society and she has been working as such

since February 10, 1987. Initially, the salary of the petitioner was

withheld by the Chairman of the respondent society in February 2004

and a suspension order was issued against the petitioner on June 3,

2004. The petitioner approached the High Court by a writ petition and

on the basis of an order passed in such writ petition being WP No.

10677 (W) of 2004, salary of the petitioner due for the period prior to

her suspension was ordered to be released. In terms of an observation

made in such writ petition, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal.

Upon conclusion of a disciplinary action against the petitioner, the

disciplinary authority and Board of Directors through its Chairman

imposed a penalty upon the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry

report. The petitioner was inflicted with an order of penalty of

dismissal from service. In the meantime, Board of Directors was

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB dissolved and the management of the respondent society was

managed by a special officer. After several grounds of litigations, the

petitioner was reinstated in service by an order passed on April 4,

2014. The petitioner joined her duties on April 11, 2014 in pursuance

of such letter.

9. It is further case of the petitioner that in pursuance of a report

dated May 20, 2014 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Kolkata Range, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal by

its letter dated August 22, 2014 directed the Deputy Registrar to

proceed with the revised of pay scale of the employees of the society in

terms of the pay scale of Kolkata Municipal Corporation subject to the

conditions, namely,

a. "No arrear salary to be allowed;

b. All pending works including preparation of accounts for audit and member list/ voter list for ensuing election within short period of time, and undertaking to be taken from the employees to that effect."

10. In pursuance of such directions from the Registrar Co-operative

societies, the Deputy Registrar issued a memo dated August 28, 2014

intimating the special officer of the society to make disbursement of

salaries and allowances, e.g., gratuity, leave encashment etc. to the

existing employees of the society in the revised pay scale as per ROPA,

2009 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation which was sanctioned from

the month of August, 2014, subject to the aforesaid two conditions. In

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB pursuance of such direction, the Special Officer and Inspector of Co-

operative Societies adopted a resolution to disburse salary and

allowances of the existing employees strictly in compliance with the

memo dated August 22, 2014. The Secretary of the respondent society

was directed to take necessary measures and to take personal care to

obtain the undertaking as desired by the Registrar of Co-operative

Society, West Bengal before disbursement of the revised pay scale.

11. It was the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner made

a representation before the Secretary of the society on August 9, 2014

asking him to take steps/necessary action for updating and

completion of the accounts of the share section where, the petitioner

was then posted, for the financial year April, 2013 to March, 2014

since the petitioner joined the said section on April 11, 2014. It was

her contention that she could not be held liable to complete the work

for the financial year April, 2013 to March, 2014, i.e., before she

joined in the said section. Consequently, the petitioner declined to give

the requisite undertaking. At the same time, by a letter dated August

9, 2014, the petitioner also said her to be transferred to some other

section from where she was working. It was submitted that since the

petitioner declined to give the undertaking as required by the memo

dated August 22, 2014, her pay and allowances were not revised in

terms of ROPA, 2009 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation. In such view

of the facts, the Inspector of Co-operative Societies, RTAH Cell, RCS,

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB West Bengal & Special Officer, Calcutta Corporation Co-operative

Credit Society Ltd. by his letter dated September 4, 2014 intimated

the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies that the petitioner was

not agreeable to give the requisite undertaking and sought for specific

directions over the matter. In response to such letter, the Deputy

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by his letter dated September 15,

2014, instructed the Special Officer to act in terms of the directions

given in memo dated August 22, 2014. The petitioner also made a

representation before the Special Officer to act in accordance with

ROPA, 2009 of Calcutta Municipal Corporation, more specifically Rule

7 and Rule 11 thereof.

12. From the materials placed before us, it emerges that the

appellant was aggrieved with the memo regarding fixation of the salary

in terms of ROPA 2009 on two counts, namely:

i. She was not agreeable to execute the undertaking with regard to clearance of arrears of work as required by the impugned memo in terms of the directions of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies.

ii. It was the claim of the petitioner that ROPA 2009 was required to be implemented with effect from January 1, 2006. By the impugned memo, in respect of the respondent society, it was sought to be implemented with effect from August 2014 and there was no provision for payment of arrears of such fixation with effect from January 1, 2006.

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB

13. So far as first point is concerned, the learned Single Judge, by

the impugned judgment and order, set the controversy at rest by

holding that,

9. On a close scrutiny of the said clauses of undertaking, this Court is firstly of the view that, ROPA, 2009 has its statutory flavour. If it is decided by this Court that ultimately ROPA, 2009 is applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner is eligible to receive all the benefits thereunder to which the petitioner if is found to be entitled in accordance with law, then this undertaking will, in any event, be overruled in view the statutory operation of ROPA, 2009. In the event, ROPA, 2009 permits the petitioner to receive arrear salary, then by executing this undertaking such statutory provision cannot be overridden. Rest of the provisions for undertaking were related to the service tenure of the petitioner. Since, the petitioner has already retired as mentioned above, Clause 2 of the undertaking as quoted above has become irrelevant at this juncture and will have no force and effect on the petitioner in any manner. In the event it is found by this Court ultimately that ROPA, 2009 shall apply to the petitioner or if the same is not applicable for the petitioner, then also the undertaking mentioned in Clause 1 quoted above, would be no effect and force. If ROPA, 2009 permits the petitioner to receive arrear salary, the petitioner will be eligible to receive arrear salary and if ROPA, 2009 does not provide for receiving arrear salary, then the petitioner will automatically not receive the arrear salary. Therefore, ROPA, 2009 will be the guiding factor, which has its statutory flavour. Thus, in view of the above, this Court is of the firm view that the said memo dated August 22, 2014 with the stipulation mentioned therein Annexure-P/6 at page 58 to the writ petition shall have no binding force or effect upon the petitioner."

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB

14. Since the appellant has already superannuated, there was no

point in obtaining an undertaking from her as to the clearance of

arrear works in the office. The respondents have not challenged such

finding by the learned Single Judge and it has attained finality.

15. As regards point No. ii, the learned Single Judge held that the

Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies had decided that the benefit

of revised pay scale as per ROPA, 2009 of the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation was sanctioned from the month of August, 2014. In

consonance thereof, the Cooperative Society, by its resolution dated

August 28, 2014 decided to grant the revised pay scale as per ROPA,

2009 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation from the month of August,

2014.

16. At the time of hearing, the learned advocate for the appellant

referred to Clauses 7 and 11 from ROPA, 2009, in support of the

contention that the appellant was entitled to receive the benefits of

ROPA, 2009 with effect from January 1, 2006 being the effective date

of ROPA, 2009. The learned Single Judge observed in the impugned

judgment and order that Clause 7 of the ROPA, 2009 related to fresh

recruits appointed on or after January 1, 2006. The appellant was

appointed much earlier, sometimes in 1986. Therefore, Clause 7 was

not applicable in respect of the appellant.

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB

17. Clause 7 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Revision of Pay &

Allowance Rules, 2009 is reproduced here which reads:

"7. Fixation of pay in revised pay structure of employees appointed as fresh recruit on or after 1st day of January, 2006- (1) The pay of direct recruits to a particular post carrying a specific grade pay shall be fixed on or after the 1st day of January, 2006, at the entry level pay in the pay band as indicated in Part-E of Schedule I to this resolution. (2) The provisions of sub-para (1) shall also be applied in the case of those recruited between 1st day of January, 2006 and the date of publication of this Resolution.

Provided that.................................................... "

18. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provisions of Clause 7 of the

Rule of 2009, we are in complete agreement of the findings of the

learned Single Judge to the effect that such clause is not applicable in

the case of existing employees. The appellant was admittedly an

existing employee having been appointed in the year 1986. At no

stretch of imagination, she was a fresh recruit in terms of sub-para (1)

or sub-para (2) of Clause 7 of the Rules of 2009.

19. The other contention of the appellant is that the respondent

authorities decided to implement the ROPA 2009 in complete violation

of Clause 11 of the ROPA Rules of 2009 of the Kolkata Municipal

Corporation. Clause 11 of the Rules of 2009 is set out as under:

"11. Payment of arrears.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Resolution, or in any other Resolution or order for the time being in force, no arrears of pay to which an

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB employee may be entitled in respect of the period from 1st day of January, 2006 to the 31st day of March, 2008, shall be paid to the Employee.

(2) (a) The arrears of pay to which the Employee may be entitled to in respect of the period from 1st day of April, 2008 to 31st day of March, 2009, shall be paid in three consecutive equal yearly installments in cash from the year 2009-2010.

(b) An employee, who retired on any date between 1st day of January, 2006 to the 31st day of March, 2008, shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period up to 31st day of March, 2008.

(c) An employee, who retired between the periods from the 31st day of March, 2008, to the 1st day of April, 2009, but before publication of this Resolution in the Official Gazette, shall receive arrears of pay for the period from the 1st April, 2008 to the date of his retirement, in cash.

Explanation ................................."

20. The learned Single Judge considered the provisions of Clause 11

of the Rule of 2009 and held that the provisions of such Clause

provided for payment of arrears of pay for the periods specified therein

and held the same to be not applicable to the employees of the

respondent Cooperative Society. The respondent Cooperative Society,

in its wisdom, decided to implement the recommendations from

August 2014. The periods contemplated in Clause 11 of the Rule of

2009 refers to the periods prior to the date of implementation of ROPA

2009 by the respondent Cooperative Society. Sitting in writ

jurisdiction, the Courts are not expected to substitute its views with

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB the decisions taken by a competent authority unless a manifest error,

telling upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner or a class is

demonstrated.

21. The impugned judgment and order has noted that the provisions

from ROPA, 2009 are adopted by the employer Cooperative Society as

a guideline to pay the revised pay scales to its existing employee which

includes the petitioner but from the month of August, 2014. As noted

above, the respondent society, upon consideration of the report

submitted by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and taking

stock of the financial stability of the respondent society, took a

conscious administrative decision to implement the recommendations

of ROPA 2009 with effect from August 2014. The ROPA Rules, 2009 of

the Kolkata Municipal Corporation provided for arrears to be paid to

its employees for the periods mentioned in Clause 11 thereof whereas,

the respondent Cooperative Society chose not to pay any arrears for

the period prior to the date of implementation of the

recommendations. Such decision was equally applicable as against

each and every employee of the society concerned. In that view of the

facts, we are not in a position to hold the decision of the Cooperative

Society is bad on the anvil of violation of fundamental rights of the

employees including the appellant.

2025:CHC-OS:192-DB

22. Therefore, in the light of discussions made hereinbefore, we find

no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. We

affirm the same.

23. Consequently, the instant appeal being APO No. 49 of 2025

along with connected applications, if any, is hereby dismissed without

any order as to costs.

24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all

formalities.

[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]

25. I agree.

[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]