State's change in policy denying benefits to Headmasters without intelligible differentia deemed illegal; reinstatement of past benefits ordered.

1. The instant writ petition is yet another instance of the inconsistent stand taken by the State regarding the grant of additional benefits to the Headmasters of upgraded schools.

2. Initially, the Education Department decided to extend such benefits to the Headmasters of all upgraded schools, but subsequently revised its position by restricting the benefits to Headmasters of schools upgraded after a particular 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 come before this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction through the writ petition filed by a retired Headmaster, primarily seeking a direction to the concerned authority to refund an amount of Rs. 1,18,776/- along with accrued interest, re-fix his pension, and release other consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner commenced his service career as an Assistant Teacher at Gulhatia A.H.M High School on 01.07.1992. Thereafter, on 19.01.2004, he assumed charge as Headmaster at Malihati Kandra High School, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Murshidabad. He retired from the said school on

28.02.2021 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

4. Taking into account the rise in prices and other relevant factors, the Government periodically introduced Rules for 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 schools.

5. In accordance with the ROPA 2009, the petitioner’s basic pay was fixed at Rs. 22,330/- as of 01.01.2006, and this fixation was duly approved by the Additional 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. 90,000/- as of 01.07.2019.

6. 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. 22,330/-. 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 15.01.2014. 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. 1,18,776/-. He was then directed to deposit the said amount as a precondition for the release of his pension.

7. 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 was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8. Mr. Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that although t