I-6

16.02.2026 Court No. 652 Sayan WPA 13336 of 2025 Kakali Ray Chakraborty Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sakti Pada Jana … for the Petitioner.

Mr. Pinaki Dhole Mr. Avishek Prasad … for the State.

1. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is whether the petitioner would be eligible for grant of 3 per cent additional increment along with grade pay, as per Rules, consequent upon her appointment as the Headmistress of the respondent/School.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a different school in the same district with effect from July 24, 1987. Subsequently, she joined in the same capacity in the respondent school/Nos. 6 and 7 from May 13, 1988. She has been appointed as the Headmistress of the said school with effect from May 20, 2005. Her appointment was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Dakshin Dinajpur /respondent No. 4, duly with effect from the said date.

3. The school has been upgraded with effect from July, 2012 vide letter dated January 19, 2012. Therefore, the petitioner’s pay was refixed as the Headmistress of the said school by allowing her the benefit of 3 per cent additional increments as per Memorandum No. 181- SE(b)/5b-1/9 dated October 08, 2009 and Government Order No. – 1003-SE(s)/5p-129 dated December 04, 2014.

4. Allegedly, at the fag end of her career and before retirement she has been compelled to deposit to the State Treasury, an amount of Rs.1,73,664/-, as an overdrawn amount by her included in salary which she got pursuant to the benefit of 3 per cent additional increment being granted to her. Allegedly also, that only thereafter, she has been issued the PPO in accordance with the last-drawn salary without consideration of the benefit of 3 per cent additional increment. Thus, the petitioner being aggrieved, has filed the instant writ petition.

5. Mr. Jana, learned advocate who has represented the writ petitioner, has submitted that, Court’s earlier verdict has settled the issue as involved in the instant case. In this regard, Mr. Jana has referred to the judgment of this Court in Subir Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal and Others dated January 15, 2024 in WPA 6217 of 2021 and Md. Rezaul Karim Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others dated September 04, 2025 in WPA 22276 of 2024. Apart from this, Mr. Jana, learned advocate has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated December 03, 2024 in MAT 1002 of 2022 (The State of West Bengal and Another Vs. Sri Kali Sadhan Bhattacharjee @ Bhattacharyya &

Ors.)

6. Mr. Jana has submitted that, the Court has finally settled that, in view of the enhanced responsibility of a Head Teacher in a school, upon upgradation of the school, the above benefit cannot be withheld from him/her on the ground of he or she having been appointed prior to upgradation.

7. Mr. Jana has further contended that, according to the ratio of the judgment in Rafiq Masih’s case [State of Punjab and Others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334], the monetary benefit extended to an employee even in excess of their entitlements, without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient, is not eligible to be recovered, considering the respective mutual hardship of the parties, that particularly, at the end of his service and at the time of retirement.

8. Mr. Jana has submitted that, in accordance with the said settled principles of law, the present writ petition may also be disposed of allowing benefit as above in favour of the petitioner and directing the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 1,73,664/- deposited by the petitioner with the respondent, immediately before her retirement.

9. Mr. Dhole has represented the State. Mr. Dhole accepts that, the legal position is unambiguous and well-settled as on date.

10. Notification No. 181-SE(b)/5b-1/9 dated October 08, 2009 speaks that, a teaching and non-teaching employee of the Government sponsored/aided institutions shall be entitled t