01

08.01.2026

Ct. No.18

pg.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

WPA 15301 of 2022

Asit Kumar Sen

v.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Avishek Prasad

Mr. Sourodeep Singha

… For the petitioner

Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, Ld. GP

Mr. Rajat Dutta … For the State

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on

record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the objection

raised by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Kolkata on 26th August, 2021 objecting to the petitioner’s prayer for approval of two additional

increments on acquiring Ph.D. degree in Bengali.

3. The grounds of objection as appearing at

page 33 of the writ petition (Annexure P-4) is as follows: (1) ‘copy approval of appointment letter in favour of Asit Kumar Sen’ and (2) ‘As per Expenditure Act, 2005 the concerned teacher may not accorded Ph.D allowances

(two increments)’.

4. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the

approval of his appointment issued by the District

Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Kolkata on 8th September 1997. The petitioner’s appointment stood approved with effect from 9th October, 1996. He was appointed with B.A. Degree (Honours in Bengali) and he was teaching the subject Bengali.

5. The petitioner thereafter enhanced his qualification and attained Post Graduate Degree and later on he obtained the Ph.D. decree. Though the petitioner was accorded higher scale of pay on account of acquiring post graduate degree, but the prayer for grant of two additional increments upon acquiring Ph.D. degree has been objected to by the concerned District Inspector of Schools.

6. Learned advocate representing the petitioner refers to the Government Order dated 5th January, 2012 issued by the Joint Secretary, School Education Department, Secondary Branch, Government of West Bengal, wherein a particular cut- off date was published for providing the two additional increments.

7. The issue as to whether a cut-off date can be fixed for providing additional increments to Ph.D. degree holders came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of Chowdhury Moniruzzaman v. State of West Bengal reported in (2012) 5 CHN 598 wherein the Court was pleased to hold that the Government Order dated 5th January, 2012 imposing ban on grant of incremental benefits to teachers acquiring PH.D. decree after 18th August, 2005, i.e., the date before publication of the Control of Expenditure Act, 2005 cannot be retained on record.

8. The Court was pleaded to quash the Government Order dated 5th January, 2012. The Court was also pleased to direct the authority to grant two additional increments with effect from the date when such doctoral decree was awarded to him in the convocation.

9. While deciding the aforesaid issue, the Court observed that the authority cannot create sub- classification amongst the teachers who acquired Ph.D. decree prior to the cut-off date and the teachers who acquired the decree after the cut-off date. The same is not only arbitrary and irrational but also does not have any nexus with the object to be achieved.

10. The petitioner also relies on the order dated

9th July, 2013 passed by the Court in WP No.22506 (W) of 2012 (Sanku Nath Pramanik v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein the Court was pleased to follow the law laid down in the matter of Chowdhury Moniruzzaman (supra) and was further pleased to direct grant of interest on the arrears due to the said petitioner and also imposed costs upon the authorities.

11. Prayer has been made by the petitioner to make the necessary calculation and disburse the amount on account of two additional increments at an early date as the petitioner is due to retire from service in December 2026.

12. The aforesaid submission and prayer of the petitioner has been opposed by the learned advocate representing the State respondents. Learned advocate for the State, however, contends that apart from the Control of Expenditure Act, 2005, provisions of ROPA 1998 and ROPA 2009 ought to have been