3004 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

2025 APPELLATE SIDE WEDNESDAY WPA 15452 OF 2024 Court : CB-07 Item : DL-03 Bench : SINGLE MANOJ KUMAR PATRA Matter : WPA Status : DO VS.

ID : 266057 AR : NANDY THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

MR. SAKTIPADA JANA, ADVOCATE MS. SUDIPTA PRAMANIK, ADVOCATE ……for the Petitioner MS. RUPSHA CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE MR. BIKRAMJIT MONDAL, ADVOCATE …...for the State

1. The origin of the dispute raised in the writ petition can be traced to the inconsistent stance adopted by the State regarding the grant of a 3% additional increment to the Headmasters and Headmistresses of Higher Secondary schools across the State.

2. The present case is an offshoot of that dispute, having entered the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court through a writ petition filed by a retired Headmaster, primarily seeking a direction upon the concerned authority to refund an amount of Rs. 3,74,118/- 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 Kalinagar High School on 19.07.1985. He was subsequently appointed as the Assistant Headmaster of the same school on 15.05.2006. Thereafter, on 26.09.2008, he assumed the position of Headmaster at Belgharia High School, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Barrackpore. He later joined Dakshineswar Adyapith Ananda Vidyamandir as Headmaster on 14.07.2016, from where he eventually retired from service 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 ( in short, 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.29,910/- as on 26.09.2008, and this fixation was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, the competent authority. The petitioner continued to avail this benefit, and after successive revisions in pay, his basic pay was revised to Rs. 1,07,500/- as on

01.01.2020.

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 incorrectly fixed, and that he had been unlawfully granted a basic pay of Rs.29,910/- instead of Rs.29,050/-. 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 prior to 26.09.2008. 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.3,74,118/-. 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 has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8. Mr. Jana, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that although the State authorities initially decided to extend the benefit of a 3% additional increment in basic pay to all Headmasters, they subsequently revised their decision, restricting the benefit only to those Headmasters serving in schools that were upgraded after 27.02.2009.

9. Referring to an unreported decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court rendered in MAT 6 of