IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the ROPA Rules, 1998 do not mandate obtaining prior permission and study leave for obtaining higher scale of pay based on improved qualifications relevant to teaching.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. Throwing challenge to the legality of the memo vide. no. BHT/24/5/(2)/law dated 19th January, 2010 issued by the Additional District Inspector of School (S.E.), Basirhat Sub-Division, North 24 Parganas and praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to grant post graduate scale of pay and its consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner, the present writ petition was preferred.

2. The facts need to be adumbrated for effective adjudication of the writ petition are as follows:-

(i) The petitioner joined the Gabati A.H.M. Senior Madrasah (in short, the Madrasah) as Assistant Teacher in language Group on 01st May, 1998. Petitioner’s appointment was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), North 24 Parganas.

(ii) On 6th of September, 2003, by making an application the petitioner solicited permission of the managing committee of the Madrash to pursue M.A. in Arabic from Aligarh Muslim University. Pursuant thereto, the managing committee by adopting a resolution accorded such permission. The petitioner obtained M.A. degree in Arabic in 2004-2005 academic years. The last date of his M.A. examination was on 6th May, 2005.

(iii) Subsequent thereto, the petitioner vide. his application dated 18th July, 2005 implored the competent authority to grant of higher scale of pay due to enhancement of qualification on the subject relevant to his teaching but despite receipt of such application, the same was kept in suspended animation.

(iv) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved a writ petition being WP No. 5784 (W) of 2009, which was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation appending all necessary documents thereto before the Additional District Inspector of Schools within a specified time frame who, upon receipt of such application from the petitioner within the time as stipulated therein, was directed to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. The reasoned order was directed to be communicated to the parties thereto.

(v) In terms of the order dated 30th June, 2009, the Additional District Inspector of School by passing an order dated 9th January, 2010 refused to accept the petitioner’s prayer for grant of higher scale of pay on the grounds that the petitioner’s prayer for study leave to pursue M.A. in Arabic had not been granted by the Secretary of West Bengal Board of Madrasah education and despite receipt of prayer for permission to pursue M.A. in Arabic, no response had been made from the end of Director of School Education.

(vi) As such, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition to question the propriety of the order dated 19.01.2010 with a further prayer for a direction upon the concerned respondents to grant post-graduate scale of pay in favour of the petitioner.

3. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining age of superannuation and as such, by preferring an application further direction was sought for release of terminal benefits on the basis of such higher scale of pay. Both the writ petition and the application filed in connection therewith were taken up for hearing together.

4. Mr. Bari, learned advocate representing the petitioner argued that the respondents refused to entertain the petitioner’s prayer for higher scale of pay on the ground that he enhanced his qualification without obtaining prior permission from the Additional District Inspector of School and study leave duly sanctioned by the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education (in short, the Board).

5. It was sought to be contended by him that nowhere in Revision Of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1998 (in short, the ROPA Rules, 1998), there was any provision requiring a teacher to obtain prior permission from the competent authority to improve his qualification. He contended that grant of study leave by the Broad was not a mandatory requirement for obtaining higher scale of pay.

6. He argued that the only