Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court directed the release of full retrospective monetary benefits to a retired assistant teacher, who had acquired higher qualifications before his appointment. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a higher pay scale with effect from the date he became eligible rather than the later date determined by the authorities. The District Inspector of Schools was instructed to process and release the arrears accordingly.

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher at Pichhabani Baniniketan High School in Purba Medinipur, was appointed on October 7, 1988. At the time of his appointment, he possessed a Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) degree along with a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). However, the District Inspector of Schools recorded his qualification as B.Com. B.Ed., treating him as a pass graduate teacher instead of an Honours Graduate.

Following his appointment, the petitioner requested an upgrade to the Honours Graduate pay scale, citing his qualifications and teaching responsibilities. The school authority passed a resolution in support of his request and forwarded the necessary documents to the District Inspector of Schools. Despite multiple representations and recommendations from the school authorities, no action was taken to grant him the Honours Graduate pay scale.

In 2005, the petitioner filed a writ petition (WP No. 12312 (W) of 2005) before the High Court, seeking the grant of the higher pay scale based on his qualifications. The court directed the respondent authorities to consider his claim. However, no steps were taken. This led the petitioner to file another writ petition in 2009 (WP No. 23459 (W) of 2009), again seeking the implementation of his entitlement to a higher pay scale.

In 2013, in response to the judicial directives, the District Inspector of Schools granted the petitioner a notional benefit from October 7, 1993, to May 1, 2002, and cash benefits from May 1, 2002, onward. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that he was entitled to full monetary benefits from October 7, 1993, rather than the notional benefit.

The court examined various government orders relevant to the case, including Order No. 372-Edn(B) dated July 31, 1981, Order No. 400-Edn(B) dated September 10, 1991, and Order No. 796-Edn(S) dated November 22, 1993. These orders provided guidelines on granting a higher scale of pay to teachers who obtained higher qualifications before or after their appointment.

The judgment referenced Order No. 372-Edn(B), which stated, "All existing Secondary School teachers who have improved their qualifications relevant to their teaching subjects will get the higher scale on qualification basis without any restriction." The order also included provisions for teachers who obtained qualifications in unrelated subjects, allowing them to receive a higher scale of pay after five years of continuous teaching.

The court also examined Order No. 400-Edn(B), which amended the 1981 order, stating that teachers who were appointed with higher qualifications in subjects not relevant to their teaching or who improved their qualifications in unrelated subjects would be eligible for a higher scale of pay from April 1, 1981, or after five years of teaching, whichever was later.

The court found that the petitioner had met these criteria, as he had acquired his Honours qualification before his appointment and had taught continuously for more than five years. The judgment recorded, "It is not that he has not raised objection for not granting higher pay scale for higher qualification. From very beginning, his school authority recommended his case for higher scale of pay on the basis of resolution as well as Government orders to the D.I. of Schools but same was not considered in due course as such petitioner filed earlier two writ petitions with a prayer for granting him higher scale of pay but same was not considered in spite of directions of this Court."

The court also took into account a similar case, in which another teacher, Pannalal Mahato, was granted the Honours Graduate pay scale under comparable circumstances. The judgment stated, "The Government of West Bengal cannot treat the case of the Petitioner in different manner, therefore, it is a clear case of discrimination in the same nature of case."

The judgment further examined Order No. 796-Edn(S), which clarified that teachers with postgraduate or equivalent higher qualifications in relevant subjects should be granted a higher pay scale, even if their school’s staff pattern did not initially provide for such positions.

After considering these government orders, the court found no basis for granting the petitioner only a notional benefit from 1993 to 2002 instead of full cash benefits for the entire period. The judgment recorded, "Higher scale of pay should be allowed to the petitioner w.e.f. 07.10.93 till his retirement."

The court directed the District Inspector of Schools to process and grant the higher pay scale with full monetary benefits. The judgment recorded, "As the petitioner has already retired, the District Inspector of Schools, particularly, Respondent No. 4, shall take appropriate steps to process and grant the higher scale of pay in cash benefit w.e.f. 07.10.93 till his retirement for his higher qualification. The entire process shall be completed as early as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order."

The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

Case Title: Ambika Charan Majhi v. The State of West Bengal and Others
Case Number: WPA 11485 (W) of 2015
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]