ASOK KUMAR DAS vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 20122 of 2021

Asok Kumar Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the Petitioner : Mr. Sakti Pada Jana

: Ms. Sudipta Pramanik





For the State : Mr. Pinaki Dhole

: Mr. Avishek Prasad



Judgment on : 13.11.2026

Uploaded on : 13.11.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
1. The present writ petition is for seeking relief as the petitioner has
not been granted with the higher pay scale, as per his
qualification, which is allegedly not in conformity with law.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the respondent school as per
recommendation of the West Bengal Regional School Commission
on July 2, 1999. His service was approved.
3. Fact remains that the petitioner though admittedly has been a
Master's degree qualified candidate in Bengali, has opted to be
treated as a Pass degree holder and thus was recommended and
placed in the respondent school as a pass degree holder teacher.

Page 2 of 5


4. After his approval the petitioner has sought for higher pay scale to
him, pursuant to his Master degree qualification.
5. Mr. Sakti Pada Jana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would say that the petitioner be governed under Rule 12(3) of
ROPA 1998 and should be provided with the higher pay scale.
6. Mr. Jana, would indicate that at the time of induction, the
petitioner has been subjected to the same examination as with
the other category of candidates.
7. He would further say that the subsequent amendment of ROPA
1998 vide Memorandum No. 155-SE(B)/10M-102/98 dated July
13, 1999 would not be applicable in the petitioner's case on two
scores. Firstly, that the petitioner joined at a date prior to
issuance of this memorandum and the memorandum as above
having no retrospective effect could not be made applicable in
case of the petitioner. Secondly, that the said memo no. 155-
SE(B)/10M-102/98 has already been set aside by this Court, by
dint of the judgment of Partha Chatterjee vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors. reported in 2004(2) CLJ (Cal) 493 .
8. Thus, according to Mr. Jana, the petitioner would be entitled to
be governed under Rule 12(3) of ROPA 1998 and thus would be
eligible for grant of higher pay scale.
9. Mr. Pinaki Dhole, learned counsel representing the State has
raised strong objection as to the contentions and prayer of the
petitioner as above.
10. Mr. Dhole has stated that the petitioner has been recommended
by the School Service Commission as a pass graduate candidate
for appointment and thus, he cannot be granted any other pay
scale, other than commensurate with the category to which, he
has been recommended for.

Page 3 of 5


11. For this, Mr. Dhole relied on the memo no. 155-SE(E)/10M-
102/98 dated July 13, 1999. He would further submit that the
petitioner has voluntarily appeared in the examinations as a pass
degree holder and recommended and appointed as such.
12. Accordingly, he says that the petitioner cannot be brought within
the purview of ROPA 1998 as claimed.
13. Mr. Dhole, would say that as per the staff pattern of the school,
the petitioner has been placed in the respondent school in a
graduate category post and thus as per staff pattern the petitioner
would not be entitled for grant of higher pay scale.
14. It appears from record that the petitioner was approved in service
against the permanent vacancy with effect from July 2, 1999, that
is a date prior to the date of notification number 155. The said
notification having no retrospective application, therefore cannot
be made applicable in case of the present petitioner, as has been
done by the respondent. considering the relevant date, this Court
is in concurrence with opinion of Mr. Jana learned advocate for
the petitioner, that the petitioner should be considered as
governed under the provisions of ROPA 1998.
15. In this regard, this Court is further guided by the decision of the
Hon’ble Larger Bench of this Court, in case of Utpal Kanti
Karan [Utpal Kanti Karan versus State of West Bengal
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1274] . In the same the
’
Hon ble Larger Bench has categorically laid down that a teacher
with higher qualification would be guided by the relevant Rule,
prevalent at the material point of time. As discussed above, in
case of the present petitioner, the same is ROPA 1998, relevant
portion of which may be quoted as here in below:
“12. Career Advancement Scheme and related issues.

Page 4 of 5

(3) All teachers including Physical Education Teachers and Librarians of
Secondary Schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications
who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or groups
relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay
st
appropriate to their qualifications, with effect from the 1 January, 1996 or
the date of improving qualifications, whichever is latter.”

16. The issue in the instant writ petition is whether higher education
of the writ petitioner who was appointed as a graduate teacher,
should be recognisable as per law, in terms of revising his pay to
the post graduate category or not. This has to be answered in
affirmative, particularly in view of the provisions under ROPA,
1998, as quoted above, under which the petitioner was covered at
the material point of time. The fact that the petitioner should be
governed under the ROPA 1998, is further fortified through the
well celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Larger Bench as stated
above.
17. Hence, this court finds, that there remains very limited or no
scope at all for the respondent authority to deny the petitioner,
the postgraduate scale of pay, pursuant to his actual qualification
of Master Degree. As a matter of fact, the petitioner shall be
entitled for grant of higher pay scale as above, with effect from the
date of his joining that is July 2, 1999. In the manner, this Court
finds that the petitioner should also be considered as entitled for
18 and 20 years benefits for satisfactory service as an assistant
teacher in the school, as per the G.O. No. 181-SE(B)/5B-1/09
dated October 8, 2009.
18. Hence, it is further found that the present writ petition should
succeed.
19. Therefore, let this writ petition be allowed with the directions as
follows: -

Page 5 of 5


i. The petitioner is found eligible for grant of post-graduate
scale of pay with effect from his date of joining in the school
that is, July 02, 1999.
ii. Let the respondent authority, therefore, appropriately refix
the pay scale of the petitioner, within a period of four (04)
weeks from the date of communication of this judgment.
iii. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled for grant of
arrear salary as applicable; let that be released by the
respondent in favour of the petitioner within a period of three
(03) months from the date of communication of this
judgment.
iv. Likewise, the petitioner shall also be entitled for the benefits
of 18 years/20 years service benefits on account of his
satisfactory service as the Assistant Teacher in the school in
terms of G.O. No. 181-SE(B)/5B-1/09 dated October 8,
2009.

v. Hence, let the respondent authority release such benefit in
favour of the petitioner, within a period of three (03) months
from the date of communication of this judgment.
20. Writ petition No. WPA 20122 of 2021 is allowed and disposed of.
21. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)