SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 787

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Saikat Ghosh – Petitioner 
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 11776 of 2004
Decided On : 28-10-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Debabrata Roy
For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Mr. Kartick Chandra Karan

The Court ruled that a higher pay scale is warranted for a teacher qualified with a Master's degree, emphasizing equal pay for equal work as per constitutional provisions.

Headnote:(A) ROPA Act, 1990 - Sections 16(3) and 12(3) - ROPA Act, 1998 - Higher pay scale for teachers - The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher, claimed a higher pay scale due to his M.P.Ed qualification, arguing denial violates Article 14 - Court determined no discrimination against similarly qualified teachers and ruled higher pay scale applicable. (Paras 1, 3, 9)

(B) Notification No. 795-Edn(S) - Clarification regarding higher pay for Physical Education teachers with M.P.Ed - Court finds provisions support the petitioner's claim, distinguishing applicable notifications. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner had been appointed as a pass graduate Physical Education teacher, although prior to service, he completed his M.P.Ed. qualification, which he contended justified a higher pay scale. (Para 4)

Findings of Court:
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting entitlement to M.P.Ed scale from date of appointment, directing immediate disbursement of benefits and arrears. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issues included entitlement to a higher pay scale due to M.P.Ed qualification and clarification on the applicability of notifications regarding salary scales.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the principle of equal pay for equal work, referencing constitutional guarantees against discrimination, asserting that staff patterns should not affect pay based on qualification alone.

Result: Writ petition allowed, higher pay scale granted.

Table of Content
1. petitioner is qualified as an assistant teacher. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claims for higher pay based on qualifications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court analyses applicability of notifications on pay scale. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. court's directive on granting arrears and pay scale. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Physical Education subject, at Nawadwip Hindu School vide the recommendation dated March 15, 1999, made by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission and joined therein on March 26, 1999. The writ petitioner was recommended as a pass graduate teacher and his service was approved later on mentioning him as a “B.A/B.P.Ed qualified teacher.

2. According to the writ petitioner however, even before entering into the service, he completed successfully his Master’s Degree, in Physical Education subject [M.P.Ed]. according to him, since none of the posts in the State were earmarked for the Master’s Degree holder so far as the subject Physical Education is concerned and required qualification for all available posts in the said subject was graduate degree only, the petitioner was inducted therein as a pass graduate teacher of Physical Education subject.

3. Mr. Roy learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, in view of the provisions of ROPA 1990, ROPA 1998 and Notification No. 795-Edn(S) dated November 22, 1993, [in short “No.795”] the writ petitioner is entitled to get higher pay scale commensurate to a teacher, possessing Master Degree, as he already was qualified as such, before entering into the service. He has also referred to a judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 6608 (w) of 2022 dated June 9, 2008 [Subrata Kumar Ghosh vs State of West Bengal & Others] The Court has held therein that the government orders pertaining to the staff pattern have nothing to do with the salary and the allowances of the teachers. Rather the same is dependent on the qualification of the teacher and modifiable with change in the same. The following portion thereof be extracted as the same may be relevant for the purpose of this case:

"Where all Assistant Teachers constitute a single class, and as per the Government Orders pertaining to salary and allowances, there scales are to be fixed on the basis of qualifications in the relevant teaching subject, payment of different scales to two teachers with the same qualifications, teaching the same subjects in the same classes, in the same or in different aided non- government schools or Madrasahs, on the basis of the requisite qualification for the teaching post, as per the approved staff pattern, which is in no way related to the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the teaching posts, would amount to denial of equal pay for equal work and offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

4. According to Mr. Roy, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, depriving him of the higher pay scale commensurate to a Post Graduate Degree for an Assistant Teacher amounts to gross infringement of the right to equality of the writ petitioner and his legal and statutory rights too. Hence, appropriate relief has been prayed for in this case for the petitioner, by granting him the higher pay scale.

5. The respondent/State has not raised any objection as to the fact that prior to entering into the service, the petitioner duly completed and qualified in the Post Graduate course. The respondent’s first contention is that, on December 30, 2021, the petitioner was appointed on transfer in another school for the subject Physical Education, in normal section, in place of an Assistant Teacher which pass graduate qualification. Secondly, with reference to the notification No. 155-SE(B) dated July 13, 1999 [in short “No.155”], it has been stated that not all Physical Education teachers, who have been appointed with higher qualification in the subject, should be eligible for grant of higher pay scale, until and unless the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top