IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that qualifications obtained before a specified date must be recognized for pay scale determination, ensuring fairness in employment practices.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. Impugned in the writ petition, is a letter issued by the Sub-Inspector of School, Uttarpara Circle (Primary)/respondent no. 7, dated August 18, 2022, to the writ petitioner stating inter alia therein that the petitioner would not be eligible for ‘A’ category scale of pay, with effect from January 15, 1997, as per G.O No. 352-SE (pry), dated May 31, 1996. Therefore, his basic pay has been reduced and he has been asked to refund the overdrawn amount.

2. Writ petitioner’s case is that neither the scale of pay, as was allowed to him at the time of his induction in the service, has been erroneous nor any amount of money has been overdrawn by him during his entire career, as alleged. Thus, he challenges the decision of the said respondent, informed vide the impugned letter dated August 18, 2022.

3. The relevant facts necessary for proper disposal of this case are as follows:-

4. The petitioner was appointed vide letter dated January 7, 1997 as an Assistant Primary Teacher and joined in service, on January 15, 1997. At the time of his induction in service, he was qualified with B.A. and B. Ed. Degrees and since inception he has been allowed the ‘A’ category scale of pay.

5. During the entire service life, the petitioner has been transferred thrice, that is, in the years 2000, 2003 and 2007. He has ultimately retired with effect from February 28, 2023, on attaining the age of superannuation.

6. At the fag end of his career, the impugned letter was issued to him on August 18, 2022, which if allowed to stand would effect diminishing the scale of pay of the writ petitioner to the lower category with effect from January 15, 1997, and thus the salary so far drawn by him would be considered to be in excess and he would be duty bound to refund such excess amount of the money.

7. The questions involved in this writ petition which fall for determination of this Court are, (i) Whether the scale of pay allowed to the writ petitioner since inception of his career would be liable to be reduced citing the provisions of Government Order dated May 31, 1996, as above;

(ii) That, whether the petitioner would be eligible to the ‘A’ category scale of pay from the date of his appointment or not in terms of the said Government Order;

(iii) Whether the writ petitioner would be considered to have overdrawn wages on the basis of a scale of pay which was not to be allowed to him; (And) (iv) whether the writ petitioner would be liable to refund any overdrawn amount as alleged.

8. Mr. Chowdhury has appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner. He has submitted categorically that according to the qualification of the writ petitioner, he has been allowed ‘A’ category scale of pay since the date of his appointment. He further states that throughout entire service career of the writ petitioner there has not been any dispute with regard to such scale of pay enjoyed by the writ petitioner. He submits further that in that view of the facts, the decision of the authorities vide the impugned letter dated August 18, 2022, is so belated that if it is allowed to stand, shall violate the petitioner’s vital fundamental and constitutional rights of life.

9. Mr. Chowdhury says that a proper interpretation of the Government Order dated May 31, 1996, would not render to bring the writ petitioner’s case in its cover. It is an erroneous application of the notification in case of his client, he says. He says that showing the provision of the notification dated May 31, 1996, to curtail the existing benefits of service to the writ petitioner, is only arbitrary and perverse. Such an arbitrary and perverse ground to adversely affect whatever benefit the writ petitioner has been enjoying so far, would vitiate the purported action of the respondent authority as indicated in the impugned letter dated August 18, 2022.

10. Mr. Chowdhury has further relied on the text in the notification No. G.O No. 352-SE (pry), dated May 31, 1996. On the basis of Clause 4 of the same, he