Sajal Kumar Maity Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 13^th January, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by the said order.

The grievance of the appellant is that the three increments to the appellant have been granted notionally and the actual benefit of the increments was not given to him by the respondent. The appellant’s career had a very checkered history. He claims to have been physically handicapped. He also had severe differences of opinion with the Headmaster of the school and according to the appellant was prevented from joining the school on several dates. Firstly for 167 days between 22^nd August, 2006 and 4^th February, 2007 for 318 days from 21^st January, 2008 till 3^rd December, 2008 and for 435 days between 26^th June, 2018 and 3^rd September, 2019.

2

The appellant had approached this Court on three several occasions and there were also an appeal from certain orders. It is based on these orders that the appellant was allowed to join the school. While it is true that no sufficient evidence before this Court as regards the appellant being prevented to join school. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the appellant absented himself from school on the regular basis as indicated hereinabove.

Eventually with the view to put an end to the dispute between the parties that D.I. of Schools and the other authorities adjusted the absence of the appellant as indicated hereinabove against medical leave, half pay leave and extraordinary leave. The PPO of the appellant was issued albeit with some delay giving effect to the increments and the appellant is admittedly receiving full pension including three increments that were granted to him notionally.

The appellant, however, claims that in the absence of any disciplinary proceeding the respondent authorities were not entitled to withhold the actual payment of three increments granted to him notionally. At the first glance the argument of the appellant appears to be attractive.

However, considering the report filed by the respondents before the Coordinate Bench it appears that in terms of the Finance Ministry G.O. No. 181SE(B)/5B-1/09 dated 8^th October, 2009, the

3

extraordinary leave availed by the appellant was condoned and regularized after 1^st of July of the concerned D.I.

It is essentially in this context that the benefit of the preceding month when the increments came to effect was not given to the appellant.

There respondents, therefore, acted in terms of the G.O. dated 8^th October, 2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance of the State.

It further transpires that the appellant while accepting arrears albeit paid after he retired did not raise any objection of any shortfall. He accepted the same without the demur or protest. To permit the appellant now to turn back and demand the benefit of the actual increment that was notionally granted to him while including the quantum of pension under the PPO would not be proper. The appellant is estopped from raising any dispute in this regard.