SHANTANU SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State-respondents are present. The matter is taken up for further hearing. It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant teacher in the concerned school with effect from 02. 12. 1985 having B. Sc. degree. Said appointment was duly confirmed. Subsequently, in the year 1992 the petitioner passed the M. Sc. Examination in the year 1992 in the same science stream. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted higher scale of pay and he was enjoying the same. However, subsequently, the management of the school thought it proper to refer the matter to the concerned District Inspector of School for according sanction to the said higher scale of pay in favour of the petitioner. It appears from the Annexure-P-4 that the District Inspector of Schools sought clarification from the commissioner of School Education, West Bengal, in the year 2006 narrating everything in respect of the claim of the petitioner. It further appears from Annexure-P-5 that the Director of School Education, West bengal, sent a reply to the District Inspector of School wherein it has been stated that higher scale of pay under the provision of the West Bengal school (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005, cannot be accorded. This letter is the subject-matter of the writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, Control of Expenditure Act, 2005 has got no retrospective effect and since the petitioner enhanced his qualification in the year 1992, that is long before the said act came into operation, so that act cannot be any bar in granting of higher scale of pay in his favour. It is now the settled position of law that the Control of Expenditure Act, 2005 has got no retrospective effect and as such since the petitioner obtained the higher qualification in the year 1992, that act cannot be any bar for the petitioner in getting such higher scale of pay. The observation of the Director of School Education in this respect appears to be improper and should not be taken into account while passing the order in favour of the petitioner in respect of his claim of higher scale of pay.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the State further argued that the petitioner cannot be given any higher scale of pay since he did not obtain permission from the District Inspector of School before appearing in the M. Sc. Examination. In this respect he has drawn my attention to the circular dated 24th June, 1997 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Government of West Bengal, Education Department, Secondary Branch. It appears that under the said circular it has been stated therein that in order to get higher scale of pay on account of enhancement of higher qualification, a teacher is to obtain prior permission from the District Inspector of School. However, we must not forget that the petitioner obtained the higher qualification in M. Sc. (Math) in the year 1992 and at that time the circular dated 24th June, 1997 was not in existence. As such from the plain reading of the said circular it must be said that it has got no applicability so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. That apart, if we look into the documents which have been annexed along with the writ petition, then it will appear that the petitioner obtained prior permission from the school authority and the Managing Committee of the school granted such permission in favour of the petitioner. It further appears that the said managing Committee referred the matter to the West Bengal Board of secondary Education for sanctioning the leave which was granted in favour of the petitioner for appearing in the examination in question. It appears from Annexure P-3 that the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education informed the school authority that the Managing Committee of the school was competent enough to sanction such leave. It means that total liberty was given to the Managing Committee for sanctioning the study leave in favour of the petitioner and the school Managing Committee in fact allowed such prayer of the petitioner.