Samarendranath Adak Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Samarendranath Adak Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Single Bench judgment set aside; writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to grant the appellant the 3% additional increment along with grade pay of Rs. 200/- in terms of ROPA-2009, with effect from the upgradation of the school or the date of his appointment as Headmaster, whichever is earlier; appeal and connected application CAN 1 of 2022 disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose writ petition was rejected by the Single Bench, is entitled to the benefit of the quashing of Memo dated 22nd March 2017 obtained by identically circumstanced Headmasters, i.e., restoration of the 3% additional increment with grade pay. +1 more

Court's answer

The judgment quashing Memo dated 22nd March 2017 operates in rem and not in personam; therefore its benefit must be extended to the appellant as well, even though his own writ petition was dismissed by the Single Bench.

Ratio / Principle

Equality amongst equals being the hallmark of Constitutional ethos, once the Memo was quashed and set aside the authorities cannot treat it as still alive so far as the appellant is concerned; similarly circumstanced persons cannot be treated differently.

Key takeaways

On perusal of the writ petition, the challenge to the Memo was not restricted to the retrospective-versus-prospective-operation ground alone; the solitary ground on which the Single Bench rejected the petition therefore did not reflect the pleadings.ratio¶8
Since the Memo dated 22nd March 2017 had already been quashed and set aside in another proceeding, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.ratio¶13
The respondents are directed to grant the appellant the 3% additional increment along with grade pay of Rs. 200/- in terms of ROPA-2009, with effect from the upgradation of the school or the date of his appointment as Headmaster, whichever is earlier.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FMA 981 of 2022 - Samarendranath Adak v. The State of West Bengal and others (bench: Harish Tandon, J. and Prasenjit Biswas, J.; connected application CAN 1 of 2022). The appellant, Headmaster of a Higher Secondary School upgraded after 27th February 2009, was enjoying a 3% additional increment in addition to additional grade pay conferred by a Memo dated 4th December 2014. Memo no. 292-SL/5S-294/12 dated 22nd March 2017 of the School Education Department withdrew that increment on the ground that it was not in accordance with ROPA-2009. His writ petition challenging the withdrawal Memo was rejected by the Single Bench on the solitary ground that the challenge was restricted to the Memo's operation (retrospective versus prospective). During the appeal it emerged that identically circumstanced Headmasters had obtained quashing of the same Memo, notably in Dibyendu Sundar Ray vs. State of West Bengal and others (WP 18216(W) of 2019), disposed of on 21st June 2024 with extension of the 3% additional increment. Holding that the quashing judgment operates in rem and not in personam, that equality amongst equals is the hallmark of Constitutional ethos, and that similarly circumstanced persons cannot be treated differently, the Bench extended the benefit of that judgment to the appellant notwithstanding the dismissal of his own petition, found that his challenge had not in fact been confined to the solitary ground relied on by the Single Bench, set the impugned judgment aside, and directed the respondents to grant the 3% additional increment along with grade pay of Rs. 200/- in terms of ROPA-2009 with effect from the upgradation of the school or the date of his appointment as Headmaster, whichever is earlier. Appeal and CAN 1 of 2022 disposed of; no order as to costs.

61 07.01. FMA 981 of 2022 2025 IA No. CAN 1 of 2022

Ct. No. 08 Samarendranath Adak Ab Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others.

---------------

Mr. Kanailal Samanta. … for the appellant. Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Ms. Iti Dutta. … for the State.

The writ petitioner/appellant was enjoying a 3% increment in addition to additional grade pay as a Headmaster of the Higher Secondary School upgraded after 27^th February 2009. Subsequently, a Memo being no. 292-SL/5S-294/12 dated 22^nd March 2017 was issued by the School Education Department withdrawing the said additional increment, as it is not in accordance with the ROPA-2009. By virtue of the said Memo, the earlier Memo conferring such right into the Headmaster dated 4^th December 2014 was withdrawn.

The writ petitioner/appellant challenged the said Memo dated 22^nd March 2017 by filing a writ petition on several grounds including that the same is unconscinable, unreasonable and is issued in colorable exercise of powers conferred upon the authority. The Single Bench rejected the writ petition on solitary ground that the challenge to the said Memo is restricted to its operation. In other words, it is sought to be contended that whether the Memo will have a retrospective or prospective operation cannot be a ground to quash and set aside the said Memo.

Our attention is drawn to the writ petition and we do not find that the challenge to the same Memo is restricted upon the aforesaid ground alone. The

2

appellant has averred that the said Memo cannot operate retrospectively but has challenged the said Memo on other ground as well. In course of hearing of the instant appeal, our attention is drawn to the fact that the identical writ petitions at the behest of the other Headmasters have been disposed of by this Court whereby and whereunder the said Memo dated 22^nd March 2017 has been quashed and set aside.

We find that in Dibyendu Sundar Ray vs. State of West Bengal and others (WP 18216(W) of 2019), the writ petition was disposed of on 21^st June 2024 by quashing the said Memo dated 22^nd March 2017 and extending the relief of 3% additional increment as the said writ petitioner was availing prior to the Memo came into existence.

The similarly circumstanced persons cannot be treated differently. The equality amongst the equal is the hallmark of Constitutional ethos and, therefore, the moment the said Memo was quashed and set aside, the authorities cannot treat the same alive so far as the appellant is concerned, as the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Single Bench. The judgment quashing the said Memo operates in rem and not in personem and, therefore, the benefit of the said judgment should be extended to the appellant as well.

In view of the fact that the said Memo has already been quashed and set aside in another proceeding, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. As a consequence whereof the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to grant 3% additional increment along with grade pay of Rs. 200/- in terms of the ROPA-2009 with effect from the up gradation of the school or date of his appointment as Headmaster, whichever is earlier.

With these observations, the appeal and the

3

connected application being CAN 1 of 2022 are disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon, J.)

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)