Unjust classifications by the State regarding retirement benefits violate principles of equality and lead to arbitrary demands for repayments.

1. Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

2. Mr. Ali, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to use any reply to the said opposition.

3. The instant writ petition is yet another example of the inconsistent stance taken by the State regarding the grant of additional benefits to the Headmasters of upgraded schools.

4. Initially, the Education Department decided to extend such benefits to the Headmasters of all upgraded schools but subsequently revised its position, restricting the benefits to Headmasters of schools upgraded after a specific cut-off date. This change in stance led to disputes concerning the grant of retirement benefits to those Headmasters. The present lis is merely an offshoot of that dispute, which has entered the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court through the filing of this writ petition by a retired Headmaster, primarily seeking a direction upon the concerned authority to refund an amount of Rs. 6,85,850/- along with accrued interest, re-fix his pension, and release other consequential benefits.

5. The petitioner commenced his service career as an Assistant Teacher at Jemo N N High School on 28.04.1988. He was subsequently appointed Assistant Headmaster of the same school on 04.11.1997. Thereafter, on 03.04.2006, he assumed charge as Headmaster at Kandi Raj High School, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Murshidabad. He retired from the said school on 31.01.2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

6. Taking into account the rise in prices and other relevant factors, the Government periodically introduced Rules for the Revision of Pay. In 2009, the Revision of Pay and Allowances (ROPA) Rules, 2009 were framed, incorporating a provision to implement the State’s policy decision to grant an additional 3% increment to Headmasters and Headmistresses in recognition of the added administrative responsibilities they shoulder in managing the schools.

7. In accordance with the ROPA 2009, the petitioner’s basic pay was fixed at Rs. 26,340/- as of 01.07.2006, and this fixation was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, the competent authority. The petitioner continued to avail of this benefit, and after successive pay revisions, his basic pay was revised to Rs. 1,04,400/- as of 01.07.2019.

8. At the end of his service career, when the petitioner’s pension papers were forwarded to the competent authority for processing and release of pension benefits, an objection was raised. It was alleged that the petitioner’s pay had been erroneously fixed and that he had been unlawfully granted a basic pay of Rs. 26,340/-. The authority based this conclusion on the claim that the petitioner was not entitled to the 3% additional increment, as the school where he served as Headmaster had already been upgraded to the Higher Secondary level on 05.09.1996. Despite having been allowed to retire while drawing the said benefit, the authority subsequently determined that the petitioner had overdrawn a total amount of Rs. 6,85,850/-. He was then directed to deposit the said amount as a precondition for the release of his pension.

9. Faced with these compelling circumstances, the petitioner deposited the said amount, following which his pension was released, albeit at a reduced rate. Consequently, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing t