Veterinary-qualified teachers in State agricultural universities are entitled to NPA under applicable ICAR norms.

The petitioners were teachers in the Department of Animal Sciences, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV), possessing B.V.Sc. & A.H. qualifications.

Their appointments restricted them from accepting other employment or engaging in outside professional work without prior university permission.

BCKV’s Executive Council had resolved to recommend Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) for teachers possessing veterinary qualifications.

After the bifurcation of BCKV and establishment of the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences (WBUAFS), similarly situated veterinary teachers of WBUAFS obtained NPA pursuant to an order dated 15 December 2005 in W.P. 239(W) of 2003.

NPA was also granted to certain veterinary-qualified personnel of UBKV and BCKV under ICAR norms.

The petitioners’ representations for NPA were forwarded by BCKV to the State Government but were ultimately rejected on the basis of the Finance Department’s view that NPA should not be extended to BCKV teachers and that an earlier proposal concerning UBKV teachers had also been rejected.

In an earlier proceeding, WPA 14532 of 2016, the High Court directed the authorities to decide the petitioners’ entitlement after considering the 2005 order and the position of similarly situated veterinary officers.

The authorities thereafter passed the impugned reasoned order dated 13 September 2022 rejecting the claim without addressing the 2005 order.

Whether the impugned order dated 13 September 2022 was legally sustainable when it failed to consider the binding direction in WPA 14532 of 2016 to examine the petitioners’ claim in light of the order dated 15 December 2005 in W.P. 239(W) of 2003.

Whether teachers of BCKV possessing B.V.Sc. & A.H. qualifications and prohibited from private practice were entitled to NPA under the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the State could deny NPA to the petitioners by relying on a purported policy decision or financial objection despite extending the benefit to similarly situated veterinary teachers and despite ICAR norms permitting such allowance.

The Court applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, holding that similarly situated employees cannot be arbitrarily denied an employment-related benefit.

It relied on the order dated 15 December 2005 in W.P. 239(W) of 2003, which held that veterinary teachers barred from private practice were entitled to NPA on parity with veterinary doctors and teachers in other medical institutions.

The Court further applied ICAR guidelines, including the ICAR memorandum dated 6 March 2009, recognising NPA for scientists holding veterinary qualifications such as B.V.Sc. and M.V.Sc.

It relied on K.I. Shepherd v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 431, and Union of India v. Anupam Biswas, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7706, for the principle that authorities cannot use a subsequent representation or hearing merely to reaffirm an earlier decision and circumvent judicial directions.

The Court also relied on Smt. Sabita Roy v. State of West Bengal, 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 2685, for the principle that administrative action contrary to a court’s order is a nullity.

The Court found that the impugned order was based primarily on the Finance Department’s opinion and the rejection of a similar proposal concerning UBKV teachers, but did not demonstrate any consideration of the 2005 order as expressly required by the order in WPA 14532 of 2016.

The 2005 order had already recognised that veterinary teachers who were prevented from private practice were similarly situated to veterinary doctors and other medical teachers receiving NPA.

The petitioners’ appointment conditions imposed a restriction on outside employment and practice, bringing them within the rationale of that decision.

The Court also noted that NPA had been granted to similarly situated teachers and veterinary-qualified personnel in WBUAFS, UBKV and BCKV, and that ICAR norms supported payment of NPA to veterinary-qualified scientists and teachers.

The State’s reliance on financial burden and an alleged policy against extending NPA to BCKV could not justify unequal treatment, particularly when the State had accepted and implemented the 2005 decision and had not challenged it.

The Finance Department’s view could not override the applicable ICAR norms or the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness.

The reasoned order dated 13 September 2022 was set aside for failure to comply with the earlier judicial direction and for denying equal treatment.

The respondents were directed to sanction and pay NPA to petitioner no. 2 from 4 April 1995, the date of joining BCKV, and to petitioner no. 1 from 18 May 1995 until 20 September 2016, when he left BCKV for WBUAFS.

Arrears were directed to carry interest at 6% per annum until payment, and the directions were to be implemented within eight weeks.

The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.