Remanded

Sankar Chandra Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC4 Dec 2019WPA/582/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an order denying a school teacher a higher pay scale after failed to consider relevant 1999 Order and relevant precedents allowing pay improvement upon qualification upgrade before 2005, directing a reasoning bearing hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools was quenched and set aside. The petitioner was directed to be granted an opportunity of hearing once again.

Sankar Chandra Khan Vs State of West Bengal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2019)

¶1

27 04.12.19 akb Ct. No. 2

¶2

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction

¶3

W.P.A. 582 of 2019 Sankar Chandra Khan -Versus-

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Debajit Kundu …For the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Debabrata Dhar, ld. A.G.P.

¶7

Ms. Bedashruti Bose …For State Respondents

¶8

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated May 28, 2019 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, rejecting the prayer for higher scale of pay of the petitioner.

¶9

The basis of the said order is that the Order No. 155-SE(B)/10M-102/98 does not allow a person who has been appointed through the West Bengal School Service Commission for higher pay scale and the same can be granted only as per the scale mentioned in the West Bengal School Service Commission.

¶10

The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri in its order dated May 28, 2019 did not take into consideration the Order, being Order No. 25-SE(B)/IM102/98 dated February 12, 1999 and the specific Clause 12(3) in the above Order.

¶11

It may be noted that the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Smt. Nita Dey Chandra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2015 (1) CLJ (Cal.), has allowed the higher scale of pay in cases where the petitioner had improved his qualification before the Control of Expenditure Act, 2005.

¶12

¶13

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶14

I the light of the above, I quash and set aside the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri and direct the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Jalpaiguri, being the respondent No. 3 to once again grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after considering the judgments and the Order indicated above, and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order within a period four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶15

Respondent No. 3 is also directed to communicate the reasoned order to the petitioner within a week from the date of passing the reasoned order.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents.

¶18

There will be no order as to costs.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.

¶20

( Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

Sankar Chandra Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar Chandra Khan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kabita Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ajit Kumar De Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ambika Mandal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Darpan Subba Vs State of West Bengal

Suman Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Seema Gupta Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.