RAMA DASGUPTA (SENGUPTA) Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Advocate for the respondents State prays for time to file affidavit. This case is of such type that the matter cannot be kept pending on the ground of filing affidavit and furthermore, there is no necessity for filing affidavit as this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ application on the question of law involved with the help of annexures to the Writ application. Accordingly, the prayer of the learned Advocate for the respondents is rejected.

(2.) In the instant case, the petitioner has challenged the memo dated 19.8.2002, annexed as annexure 'P-8' to the Writ application whereby and where under an observation was made that the petitioner's payscale would be controlled and guided by G.O. No. 138-SE(B) dated Kolkata the 15th Feb. 2002, whereby Honourable Governor was pleased to decide that all craft teachers holding 3 years' Lady Brabourne Diploma and serving in non- Government recognised and aided educational institutions would be allowed to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs. 360-815.00 under ROPA Rules, 1981 and the corresponding revised scale of Rs. 1200-2300.00 under ROPA Rules, 1990 and so on irrespective of the fact whether they are matriculate or non-matriculate. Relying upon that Circular Letter accordingly in the impugned decision, it has been decided that the petitioner's pension and gratuity amount to be revised accordingly by revising the higher pay scale as enjoyed by the petitioner since 1981 in terms of the different ROPA Rules as introduced from time to time from the year 1981 to 1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a matriculate and holding 3 years' Lady Braboume Diploma. The petitioner was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 425.00 1050.00 in terms of ROPA Rules, 1981, and accordingly the petitioner's pay scale was revised from time to time on that basis in terms of subsequent ROPA Rules of 1990 and 1998. By applying the said circular letter dated 15.2.2002, now the respondents are intending to bring down the petitioner's pay scale with retrospective effect 1981 by lowering the scale to Rs. 350-815.00 in terms of ROPA Rules, 1981, in lieu of Rs. 425-1050.00 as already approved by the Appropriate authorities and enjoyed by the petitioner. Having regard to the language of the memo dated 15.2.2002, which appears more exactly, in Clause 2 of the said Circular Letter, it appears that the said Circular Letter has no retrospective effect, but of prospective effect and that too in respect of the craft teachers who are now serving in the institution. Clause 2 of the said Circular Letter reads thus :

(3.) The word 'and' as it appears in the first sentence of that Clause is to be read conjointly to the subsequent sentence, whereby it is provided"serving in non- Government recognised and aided educational institutions". Furthermore, by using the words "will be allowed", in the said Clause, the said provision has been made as prospective. Having regard to such legal position the impugned observation on pension case of the petitioner dated 19.8.2002 is not legally sustainable. Besides, it is a settled legal position now that even if on mistake any pay scale is allowed, after retirement of the employee concerned, there is no scope to correct and modify such. There is no scope even to direct refund of the over-drawal amount after retirement of petitioner. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521 : [1994(1) SLR 827 (SC)], the relevant provision reads thus :