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) 790

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.
Bimal Chandra Barman – Petitioner 
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 22900 of 2012
Decided On : 28-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anjan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Jakir Hossain, Mr. Shahan Shah
For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh

A Graduate teacher is entitled to a higher pay scale upon obtaining advanced qualifications, regardless of school staff patterns that previously restricted such claims.

Headnote:(A) West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 - Sections 14, 16 and 20 - Claim for post graduate scale of pay by a Graduate teacher who improved qualification - The petitioner was denied the scale based on category and staff pattern, but the court found this unfounded as all teachers should be entitled to pay adjustments based on qualifications irrespective of post category. (Paras 4, 6, 9)

(B) Separation of pay from staff pattern - Court reiterated that a comparison of pay scales must be based on qualifications rather than arbitrary classifications. The statutory provisions substantiate the entitlement for higher pay once a teacher improves qualifications. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Graduate teacher in 1996, sought higher pay after obtaining an M.Sc, but was denied based on an earlier government order regarding staff patterns. Previous court rulings indicated that pay should correlate with qualifications.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the impugned order denying the post graduate scale is irrational, illegal, and not supported by the law. The denial of higher pay based on staff category is invalid.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner is entitled to a higher scale of pay based on improved qualifications despite being appointed under the Graduate category.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory provisions do not limit the right to a higher pay scale based on qualifications, even if the staff pattern suggests otherwise, reiterating that equal pay for equal work must prevail.

Result: Writ petition allowed and entitlements adjusted accordingly.

Table of Content
1. qualification improvement and entitlements (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. government orders regarding pay scale (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. rights based on statutory provisions (Para 7 , 8)
4. impugned order challenges and incongruities (Para 9)
5. petition outcome and orders (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The only issue involved in this writ petition is whether the writ petitioner, who is a 'Graduate' teacher and has improved qualification after obtaining permission of the District Inspector of Schools, is entitled for higher scale of pay or should he not be allowed the same in view of the category of post he has been appointed to and the staff pattern of the school. An order of the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal dated September 17, 2012 is under challenge in the instant writ petition. By dint of the same the petitioner's prayer for grant of post graduate scale of pay has been rejected.

2. The writ petitioner has joined in service as a 'Graduate' category teacher and similar scale of pay, with effect from June 27, 1996. His prayer for permission to be enrolled for higher degree has been duly forwarded by the school authority to the respondent/District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), Dakshik Dinajpur,[in short ”DI”]and granted by the DI, vide order dated January 7, 2004. The writ petitioner thereafter enrolls himself for the M.Sc Degree course and qualified in the same, his last date of Part-II examination being April 28. 2008.

3. After that the writ petitioner has prayed for grant of post graduate scale of pay, which was rejected vide the letter dated October 15/November 17, 1999 stating that no teacher of 'Graduate' category may be allowed the post graduate scale of pay. Hence, being aggrieved the petitioner filed his first writ petition W.P.No. 16975(w) of 2010. The Court in the same has directed the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal to consider the prayer of the petitioner, after setting aside the order dated October 15/November 17, 1999. As a result, the impugned order dated September 17, 2012, has been passed by the respondent/ Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal.

4. In the said impugned order the following has been held inter alia that:

a. The petitioner has been appointed under 'Graduate' category and improved his qualification after promulgation of the West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005; hence his claim cannot be allowed in view of the Government Order No. 593-SE dated November 27, 2007 [In short “No.593”] and the provisions under sections 14, 16 and 20 of the said Act of 2005;

b. Government Orders No. 772-Edn(S) dated July 8, 1974 [in short “No.772”] and No. 670-SE(S) dated September 4, 1998 [in short “No.670”], which were to be mandatorily followed in case of grant of permission for higher study, have not been so followed, rendering such grant of permission itself not good in the eye of law, as the same was violative of the staff pattern of the school; such permission granted unauthorizedly and in violation of the notifications does not entitle the petitioner to claim post graduate scale of pay after completion of his higher course in pursuance of the permission so granted;

c. The benefit of ROPA 1999 [clause-12(3) thereof] should be allowed to the teachers commensurate with the staff pattern thereof, in accordance with the notifications No.772 and 670 respectively;

d. Provisions under the Government Order No. 1595-SE(S) dated December 26, 2005 [in short “No.1595”] and Section 14(3) of the Act of 2005 are applicable only to the teachers who have been appointed by the West Bengal School Service Commission and the petitioner' case is not to be governed there under;

e. The prescribed rules have been violated; the petitioner has improved qualification for personal satisfaction;

f. The petitioner is not entitled to higher pay scale in terms of provisions under Sections 14, 20 of the Act of 2005.

5. This Court in W.P.No. 6608 (w) of 2022 dat

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