Disposed

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Prof.(Dr.) Krushna Chandra Dora and Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Sept 2024MAT/1151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Single Judge order granting stagnation increment to university professors under a State Finance Department memo. The appellate court found prima facie merit in the State's contention that UGC-scale employees are excluded under ROPA-2019 and admitted the appeal with stay, while permitting the State to consider a matching grant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted; operation of impugned Single Judge order stayed till disposal of appeal; notice waived; State permitted to consider matching grant.

State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Prof.(Dr.) Krushna… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

9 09.6.2025 Ct. No. 8 SB

¶2

MAT 1151 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2024

¶3

The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs.

¶4

Prof. (Dr.) Krushna Chandra Dora & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay

¶6

Ms. Tapati Samanta … for the appellants

¶7

Mr. Barun Kumar Samanta … for the respondent nos. 1_12

¶8

Mr. Amitava Choudhuri Mr. N. Roy Mr. P. Siddharta … for the University

¶9

¶10

We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.

¶11

The appeal is arising out of a judgement passed by the learned Single Judge on 07.12.2023 in a writ petition in which the petitioners’ claim stagnation increment at par with the Government Memo No. 1547-F(P1)/FA/N/2M/02/22(N.B.) dated April 13, 2022 issued by the Finance Department, Audit Branch, Government of West Bengal.

¶12

The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench in State of West Bengal and Another vs. Dr. Bikash Mohan Sanyal & Others reported in (2009) 2 CAL LT 317 to arrive at a finding that the matching grant ought to have been issued by the Government.

¶13

Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the said judgement cannot be applicable as the petitioners are the professors at West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences, Kolkata, which is an autonomous and statutory body and the applicability of the

¶14

¶15

aforesaid memo cannot be applied to the writ petitioners as they are not the government employees.

¶16

Moreover, it is submitted that the ROPA – 2019 in paragraph 2 has clearly excluded that benefits of pay revision under ROPA – 2019 in respect of Members of services to whom the University Grants Commission (UGC) is made applicable. It is submitted that the scale of pay of the petitioners are governed by the UGC and the State has merely adopted the scale of pay and that itself would not make them eligible to receive the stagnation increment as contemplated under the aforesaid memo.

¶17

Learned single Judge has referred to a decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Others vs. Tropical School Employees’ Union and Others reported in (1996) 8 SCC 294 paragraph 5 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the employees of the university are not the government servants. The respondents are governed by their own rules and regulations and statues under the respective enactments.

¶18

Mr. Samanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 12 submits that by reason of adoption of the scale of pay prescribed by the UGC, has made a pay structure which would be applicable to the writ petitioners. The stagnation benefit as extended to the other employees covered by the aforesaid memo cannot be denied.

¶19

However, prima facie , it appears that Mr. Bandopadhyay has an arguable case on merits as it appears that by reason of exception Clause 2 of ROPA – 2019 the employees enjoying the UGC scale of pay are excluded and that by reason of mere

¶20

¶21

adoption of scale of pay by the State Government the said employees does not become the employees of the State Government. We admit the appeal and grant of stay of operation of the impugned order till the disposal of the appeal.

¶22

The appellants shall file an informal paper book with proper index within four weeks from date. All other formalities are dispensed with upon prior service to the respondent nos. 1 to 12. Accordingly, service of notice of appeal upon the respondents stands waived.

¶23

The application being CAN 2 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶24

Let the matter appear in the list on 21.7.2025 at the fairly top.

¶25

However, this order shall not prevent the State Government to consider whether matching grant is possible in respect of the writ petition. In the meantime, the final decision may be placed before this Court on the next date of hearing.

¶26

The costs deposited in terms of the order dated 20.9.2024 is taken on record.

¶27

(Soumen Sen, J.)

¶28

(Smita Das De, J)

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Prof.(Dr.) Krushna Chandra Dora and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Prof.(Dr.) Krushna Chandra Dora 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyajit Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Maya Lall Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Roma Ghosh and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalpataru Maity and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Aloke Kumar Chatterjee Vs Union of India and Ors.

Octagon Plazza Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.