Dismissed¶21

Jayanta Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta HC20 Aug 2024WPA/27358/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional increments for Ph.D. holders; Assistant Teacher, Government aided school; G.O. No. 25-SE(B) dated 03.11.1999 versus ROPA 2009 / G.O. No. 46-SE(B) dated 27.02.2009 effective 01.01.2006; ROPA 1998 benefits; option exercised 19.6.2009; Ph.D. awarded 10.5.2011; refusal upheld by District Inspector of Schools, Hooghly; writ petition dismissed ex parte (no affidavit-in-opposition filed).

What did the court decide?

The Court finds no error in the finding of the District Inspector of Schools that the financial benefit in terms of the Government order dated November 3, 1999 cannot be allowed, it having lost its force once ROPA 2009 came into force with effect from January 1, 2006. ¶17

Jayanta Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner, who obtained his Ph.D. degree on May 10, 2011 after opting into the ROPA 2009 pay structure (effective January 1, 2006), is entitled to the financial benefit of two additional increments for Ph.D. holders under G.O. No. 25-SE(B) dated November 3, 1999.

¶6

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The financial benefit under G.O. No. 25-SE(B) dated November 3, 1999 lost its force as soon as G.O. No. 46-SE(B) dated February 27, 2009 came into force with effect from January 1, 2006; ROPA 2009 contains no provision for additional financial benefit for acquiring a Ph.D. degree.

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated July 2, 2013.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ph.D. increments — writ petition dismissed. The petitioner, a teacher in a Government aided school who obtained his Ph.D. on May 10, 2011 and had opted into ROPA 2009 by option dated June 19, 2009 (effective January 1, 2006), claimed two additional increments under G.O. No. 25-SE(B) dated November 3, 1999. The District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly, by order dated July 2, 2013, refused the claim on the grounds that a Ph.D. is neither an essential nor desirable qualification for an Assistant Teacher, and that the 1999 G.O. lost force when G.O. No. 46-SE(B) dated February 27, 2009 (ROPA 2009) came into force with effect from January 1, 2006, ROPA 2009 containing no provision for additional financial benefit for acquiring a Ph.D. Affirming that finding, the Court held there was no error, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition, the respondents having neither appeared nor filed any affidavit-in-opposition despite directions.

¶1

WPA 27358 of 2013

¶2

20.8.2024 Jayanta Chatterjee-vs--State of West Bengal & Ors. Ct.25, sl.209

Mr. Ekramul Bari

…for the petitioner.

This writ petition is to challenge the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Hooghly dated July 2, 2013 by dint of which the said respondent has turned down the petitioner’s prayer for extension of the financial benefit of two increments to him, he being the Ph.D.Degree holder. The concerned respondent authority has decided in the said impugned order on the basis of the following grounds:-

¶7

i) Ph.D. degree is neither essential nor desirable qualification for the post of an Assistant Teacher of a Government aided School under this directorate.

¶8

ii) The benefits of two additional increments for Ph.D. degree in terms of G.O.No. 25-SE(B), dated 03.11.99 was allowed as per ROPA 1998.

¶9

iii) The petitioner opted to come under Ropa 2009 and exercised his option on 19.6.2009 and the same was countersigned by the H.M. on the same day. And by virtue of which he elected the revised pay structure w.e.f.1^st Jan.2006.

¶10

iv) As per Ropa’ 09 Rule (G.O.No. 46-SE(B), dt. 27.02.2009) there is no provision of

¶11

¶12

additional financial benefit for acquiring Ph.D. degree to any teacher of a Government aided institution.

¶13

v) The petitioner awarded his Ph.D. degree on 10.5.2011 i.e. at that point of time he came under Ropa’09.

¶14

It is worth noting that the said financial benefit in terms of G.O.No. 25-SE(B), dated 03.11.1999 lost it’s force as soon as G.O.No. 46-SE(B), dt. 27.02.09 had come into force w.e.f.01.01.2006.

¶15

None appears for the respondents. No affidavit-inopposition has been filed in spite of directions be made by the Court.

¶16

Hence, the matter is taken up for disposal in absence of the respondent. So far as the merits of the case is concerned. It appears that the writ petitioner had obtained his Ph. D degree on May 10, 2011.

¶17

The Court finds no error in the finding of the said respondent/District Inspector of Schools, in the said impugned order dated July 2, 2013, as the same has held that the financial benefit in terms of Government order dated November 3, 1999 cannot be allowed the same having lost it’s force as soon as ROPA 2009, came into force with effect from January 1, 2006.

¶18

The same being settled the position of law, the Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order in this case.

¶19

¶20

On the premise as above, the writ petition is

¶21

dismissed.

¶22

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

Jayanta Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanta Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Tarama Marbel and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Bardhaman Charge and Ors.

Sristidhar Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ive Das Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalipada Mandal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Janardan Mondal & Anr. Vs the Wb Council of Higher Secondary Edu & Ors.

Neshat Ahmed Siddiqui Vs State of W B & Ors.