Administrative notifications issued after the promulgation of a pay revision scheme cannot be applied retrospectively to curtail the entitlements of employees, including re-employed teachers, if the original scheme did not explicitly bar them.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State of West Bengal through its functionary being the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education challenging an order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WP 18646 (W) of 2015.

2. Records would reveal that the writ petition was preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary directions upon the respondents to release the revised arrear payment of 80% of the central share for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009 and for quashing the notifications dated 25.09.2013, 03.10.2013 and 17.10.2014. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to pay the balance amount of entitlement to the writ petitioners, in accordance with law. In course of hearing of the writ petition an order was passed on 10.05.2016 and pursuant thereto, a committee constituted for verification of records of the writ petitioners regarding their re-employment filed its report on 20.07.2016. In the stay application filed in connection with the appeal an order dated 05.11.2019 was passed directing the appellant to secure an amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- with the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta for stay of operation of the order impugned.

3. Mr. Joyak Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant argues that the benefit of revised pay as per the notification dated 31.12.2008 issued on behalf of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher Education (in short, MHRD) was applicable to substantive post holders and the re-employed employees were not entitled to such pay revision. The benefits of revised pay for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009 were allowed to be enjoyed by the teachers who are in regular service and not to the teachers re-employed after superannuation on the basis of the notification dated 15/16.11.1979. Such issue, as urged, was glossed over by the learned single Judge without returning any finding on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference in the present appeal.

4. Mr. Gupta contends that the learned single Judge having arrived at a finding that ‘there is substance in the contentions of the learned Advocate General that, persons who ought not to have been re-employed had received re-employment’ and that ‘the notification dated November15/16, 1979 has been misused,’ erroneously exercised discretion in favour of the writ petitioners when their re-employment itself was doubtful.

5. He argues that in consonance with the provisions contained in the scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) notified vide memo dated 31.12.2008, notifications were issued on behalf of the Higher Education Department on 25.09.2013, 03.10.2013 and 17.10.2014 in which it was categorically indicated that Scheme was ‘not applicable to the teachers re-employed for any term before 01.01.2006, between 01.01.2006 and 31.03.2010 or after 31.03.2010’. In view thereof, it ought to have been appreciated that no legal right of the writ petitioners was infringed warranting interference. The said notifications were consequential to the Scheme and ought not to have been glossed over on a purported plea that the same cannot be given retrospective effect.

6. Mr. Tewari, learned advocate appe