A school teacher who has received the benefit of a movement to a scale similar or above the second higher scale on the basis of a higher qualification acquired during service would not be entitled to any further C.A.S. benefit.

Nishita Mhatre, J.

1. The issue involved in the present petition is the interpretation of the Career Advancement Scheme which has been notified by the State of West Bengal on 21st June, 1990 as applicable to teachers.

2. The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis on a deputation vacancy. He was appointed as Assistant Headmaster w.e.f. 20th April, 1961 on an ad hoc basis. He was appointed substantively to the aforesaid post on 24th January, 1962 and was confirmed in the post after two years, i.e., on 24th January, 1964. The petitioner had acquired his Master’s degree in 1962. However, he was extended the Post-Graduate pay-scale (Rs. 550-1470) only from 2nd April, 1981 in terms of the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1981 (for short ‘ROPA Rules’).

3. The Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.A.S.’) framed by the Government of West Bengal was notified on 21st June, 1990 and came into force with effect from 1st April, 1999.

4. The petitioner retired from service on 30th November, 1992. He submitted a representation to the authorities on 20th March, 1996 calling upon the respondents to pay to him the second higher scale as he had completed 20 years of service and was entitled to the same under C.A.S. As there was no response from the respondents the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court in 1996 being C.O. No.16025(W) of 1996. By an order dated 9th March, 1999 the learned single Judge directed the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for the benefits under the C.A.S. after affording him a personal hearing. The petitioner’s claim was rejected by an order dated 20th January, 2000.

5. The petitioner then preferred an application before the Administrative Tribunal to challenge that speaking order. He contended in his application that in view of the C.A.S. he was entitled to the first higher pay-scale after competition of 10 years of service and the second higher pay-scale after 20 years of service as he had not been promoted for over 20 years. The petitioner contended that initial pay-scale afforded to him was Rs. 550-1470. He obtained a higher amount after completion of his Master’s degree in accordance with rules governing payment of a higher salary on acquisition of better qualifications. According to the petitioner this first payment which he received in terms of the Rule 9 of the West Bengal (ROPA) Rules, 1986 on achieving better qualifications did not preclude him from securing the second higher scale of pay after 20 years. The petitioner pleaded in his original application that he had been denied his seniority at the stage of his initial appointment by delaying his substantive appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster. He contended that he was entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 3000-4750 at the time of retirement on 30th November, 1992. The petitioner further pleaded that a memorandum was issued by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal on 21st June, 1990 allowing the Government employees in the revised pay-scale Nos.1 to 16 to move to their respective next higher scale of pay on completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service. The time spent in the revised pay-scale and the corresponding unrevised pay-scale was to be taken together in order to consider first movement to the scale next above the first higher scale on completion of 10 years of continuous service.

6. The application was contested by the State before the Tribunal. It was contended in the reply filed by the State before the Tribunal that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the second higher scale of pay in terms of the C.A.S. The State further pleaded that since the petitioner had accepted his pension without any objection, he was estopped from claiming any further amount. The State contended that the petitioner was therefore not entitled to the pay-scale which he claimed, i.e., Rs. 3000-4750.

7. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions of the