Dhananjoy Pal vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J

The petitioner has challenged a Memorandum dated 29th January, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of School Education which also contains the signature of the Deputy Director of School Education. By the said Memorandum, the petitioner's prayer for Grade Pay of Rs. 4100/- under ROPA 2009, has been rejected as the Commissioner was of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 3900/- with Band Pay of Rs. 7100/- earmarked for "Graduate Librarian" under ROPA 2009 with effect from the petitioner's date of joining. The impugned order was passed pursuant to a direction given by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. 15366 (W) of 2018 on 9th October, 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the relevant dates for challenging the impugned decision of the Commissioner of School Education. Counsel submits that the petitioner qualified in a certified post of Librarian and Information Science in 2004-2005, acquired B.A. (Honours) Degree in History in 2005, acquired M.A. degree in History in 2007, acquired the degree of Bachelor of Librarian and Information Science in 2008 and subsequently acquired a Master's degree in the Librarian and Information Science in 2010. The petitioner was recommended for the concerned post on 14th June, 2011 and was appointed to the said post on 1st July, 2011. The petitioner's appointment was approved by the concerned authority on 24th August, 2011.

Counsel places the impugned order from which it would appear that the petitioner received the Grade Pay of Rs. 4100/- from 1st July 2011 to January 2012 but subsequently the petitioner's Grade Pay was reduced to Rs. 3900/-from February 2012 and a recovery of Rs. 5242/- was made by the school authority thereafter. Counsel submits that the impugned order contains the revised pay structure for the post of Librarian under the ROPA Rules, 2009 under the Government Order dated 27th February, 2009 and which shows that a qualification of a Master's Degree with recognised diploma in Library Science would be entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4100/- while a Graduate with recognised diploma in Library Science would be entitled to a Grade Pay of Rs. 3900/-. Counsel additionally points to one Sri Swapan Kumar Debnath, who is a librarian in the vicinity of the school where the petitioner is presently engaged and is getting a Grade Pay of Rs. 4100/-. Counsel also refers to a Memorandum dated 13th July, 1999 annexed to the writ petition Clause 3 of which provides that all teachers, including Physical Education teachers and librarians of Secondary Schools who have improved or will improve their qualifications or who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or group relevant to their teaching or appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications, with effect from 1st January, 1996 or the date of improving their qualification whichever is latter provided that such higher qualified teachers in the relevant subjects is justified as per approved staff pattern of the school where the teachers are appointed. Counsel submits that the Commissioner of School Education made an error in construing the provisions of ROPA 2009.

Learned counsel for the State relies on the provision of ROPA 1990 for the purpose of showing that under ROPA 1990 and ROPA 1998, the persons appointed to certain posts were entitled to a higher scale of pay upon improving their qualifications but which was altogether stopped from ROPA 2009 onwards. Counsel relies on a decision of learned Single Judge in W.P. 15403 (W) of 2011 (Smt. Purovi Dutta -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.) where the claim of the petitioner to a higher scale of pay was rejected on the ground of section 14(2) of the 2005 Act. In that decision, the learned Single Judge took into account that under Section 14(2) every teacher of a school, if appointed in the post of Graduate teacher category, will be entitled to draw pay in which he is appointed and shall not be entitled to claim any additional increment or higher scale of pay for acquiring any qualification other than the qualification specified for such posts.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On a reading of the impugned Memorandum, it appears that the tabulation given in paragraph 2 of the said Memorandum shows that a qualification of a Master's Degree holder with recognised diploma in Library Science would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4100/-. This tabulation has been made by the Commissioner of School Education in terms of the ROPA Rules, 2009 which formulated a revised pay structure for the post of Librarian. From the tabulation, it is evident that the petitioner who on the date of his appointment namely on 1st July, 2011, already held a Master Degree in Librarian and Information Science, would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4,100/-. Even if one were to discount the Master Degree of the petitioner in History acquired in 2007, on the date of his appointment, the petitioner already had Post Graduate qualification in the subject relevant to his appointment.

Two other facts are required to be mentioned. It appears from the impugned order itself that the petitioner was given the Grade Pay of Rs. 4100/-for six months after his appointment until January 2012. The reason for the reduction in the Grade pay from February 2012 has not been adequately explained in the impugned Memorandum. The second category mentioned in the tabulation pertains to a Graduate qualification with recognised diploma in Library Science which admittedly cannot apply to the petitioner since the petitioner on the date of his appointment held Master's Degree both in Library Science as well as in History. Therefore, the decision that the petitioner would be entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 3900/- does not appear to have any reasonable basis. Although the Notification dated 13th July, 1999 relied on by the counsel for the petitioner does not assist the petitioner since on the date of joining, the relevant Rules, would be of ROPA 2009, the impugned order cannot be sustained by reason of the tabulation and the ROPA Rules of 2009 referred to. The reasons given in the impugned order do not match with the qualifications of the petitioner as on the date of his recommendation (14th June, 2011) and the date of his appointment (1st July, 2011). The decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the State with reference to Section 14(2) of the 2005 Act, related to the entitlement of a teacher in the post of a Graduate category to claim additional increment or a higher scale of pay for acquiring a qualification other than the qualification specified for such posts. This provision does not have any relevance to the instant matter as the facts in this case do not involve enhancement of qualification or any claim for additional increment.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned Memorandum dated 29th January, 2019 is set aside. Since an amount of Rs. 5242/- has been recovered by the school authorities from the petitioner the concerned authorities are accordingly directed to allow Grade Pay of Rs. 4100/- to the petitioner from the date of his joining subject to the petitioner fulfilling the relevant conditions of the Rules which were prevailing on the date of his appointment.

W.P. 7708 (W) of 2019 is disposed of in terms of the above.