STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. BIKASH MOHAN SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of West Bengal has impugned the judgment and order dated 9th November, 2005 of the learned State Administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the relief sought for by the first respondent was granted quashing the Government decision for withdrawal of stagnation increment in terms of Rule 9 of the Revision of pay and Allowance Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to in short as ROPA rules ). The admitted fact in this case is shortly put hereunder : the first respondent, Dr. Bikash Mohan Sanyal joined in the West bengal Junior Education Service as Lecturer in Economics in April, 1966. Gradually, he was promoted to the post of Reader in Economics with effect from 1st January, 1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 3700 - 5700/ -. The scale of the Reader was revised by the Government with effect from 1 st January, 1986 to Rs. 12,000 - 420 - 18,300/ -. The first respondent while in the post of Reader reached maximum amount of pay in the above revised scale and started drawing @ Rs. 18,300/- per month on and from 1st January, 2001. So thereafter he was stagnated in the said scale. Therefore, he was given stagnation increment with effect from 1st January, 2002 and the applicant drew such salary until he retired from services on 31st October, 2002. In the meantime the first respondent in terms of the Government Order no. 1390-Edn. (A) dated 17th October, 2001 was granted two advance increments as was made available by the Government to the teachers of the Government colleges. By the said Government Order dated 17th october, 2001 a class of teachers viz. those who obtained Ph. D. Degree during service before 1st January, 1996 did not obtain advance increment for the Ph. D. Degree as per earlier Career Advancement Scheme with effect from 27th July, 1998. Notwithstanding grant of the said increment the principal of the Presidency College where he worked till his retirement, did not incorporate sanction of the said two increments in the Service Book for the purpose of fixing his revised pension. On the contrary, the said Principal refused to update the said Service Book and forward the same to the accountant General for the revised pension, rather asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,840/- with the Reserve Bank of India that was granted as stagnation increment. The said application was contested by the State. It was and still is the contention of the State that grant of stagnation benefit to the first respondent in terms of ROPA Rules was not appropriate as he cannot get it by virtue of the Rule 2 of ROPA Rules. According to the state, the respondent is a member of Services and has been given pay scale of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as u. G. C.), so in view of the said Rule 2 the stagnation increment is not allowed. Therefore, he derived illegal benefit.

(2.) THE Tribunal in its judgment and order found that Rule 2 of ROPA rules cannot be applied to exclude the respondent as he is not a member of services nor he was enjoying the U. G. C. pay scale.

(3.) MR. Joydeep Kar with Mr. Siddhartha Ghosh, learned Counsels, contends that admittedly the respondent has been enjoying U. G. C. pay scale, as such he became member of Services to whom the said scale was applied. He has drawn our attention to the Rule 2 which provides inter alia that those persons who are in services and enjoying U. G. C. pay scale the ropa Rules which provide for stagnation increment will not be applicable for them. It is true, according to them, the applicant was a Reader in the government College but the moment pay scale at par with that Of U. G. C. is granted to him he is not a Government servant. In support of their contention they have relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in 1992 supp. (3) SCC 191 and (1996)8 SCC 294.