W.P.A. 13750 of 2004 Shyamal Mondal -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. 06.08.2026 ct.652, sl. 12 Sayan Mr. Biswarup Biswas Mr. Pradip Kr. Ghosh …..for the petitioner. 1. In spite of service of notice, none appears for the State respondent. 2. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 3. Hence, the matter is taken up for passing an order in absence of the State respondent. 4. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged non-consideration by the respondent/District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Nadia of his representation dated 31, 2004 for grant of higher pay scale to him subject to his Master Degree’s qualification in the subject Physical Education. 5. Record has revealed that before entering into service on and from March 21, 2001, the petitioner concluded his Master Degree Course and was qualified duly in the year 2000. 6. Accordingly, after entering into service, the petitioner has prayed for grant of Master Degree scale of pay to him by dint of the letter dated May 31, 2004. 2 7. The issue involved in the instant writ petition as to whether the petitioner, who is a Master Degree qualified person since a date before entering into service, in the subject of Physical Education, would be entitled for grant of higher pay scale or not, is now well settled through various decisions of this Court including that of the Larger Bench in Utpal Kanti Karan versus State of West Bengal reported in 2024 SCC Online Cal 1274. 8. A judgment of this Court in Partha Chatterjee versus State of West Bengal reported in 2004 (2) CLJ (Cal) 493 may be mentioned in this regard, in which the Court has laid down that a teacher appointed with a post graduate degree in the relevant teaching subject cannot be denied the post graduate scale merely because the SSC recommendation did not mention the post graduate qualification or because the appointment of a post graduate teacher was not justified by the staff pattern. The Court held that fixing different pay scales for teachers possessing same qualification would offend the principle for equal pay for equal work under Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. In other judgments namely, Dhiraj Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 403 of 2009, decided on 24 February 2026, Chandan Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 5592 of 2017, decided on 30 January 2026, and Saikat Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 11776 of 2004, decided on 28 October 2025, a fairly clear principle emerges in relation to a Physical Education teacher who possessed the 3 M.P.Ed. qualification before entering service. The distinguishing feature of Physical Education is that, in the relevant period, there was no separate post in the post-graduate category for Physical Education teachers; the available post was essentially a graduate-category post. Consequently, a teacher possessing an M.P.Ed. degree before appointment necessarily had to enter service against the only available graduate-category post. Such appointment, however, cannot logically result in forfeiture of the pay scale attached to the teacher's already-acquired higher qualification. In Dhiraj Nath Sarkar (supra), the Court has held that held that the absence of a separate post for postgraduate Physical Education teachers could not deprive a teacher possessing the higher qualification of the corresponding scale. 10. The Larger Bench in Utpal Kanti Karan (supra), has now authoritatively settled the controversy by recognising, inter alia, the special position of Physical Education teachers and holding that the subsequent category mentioned in the SSC recommendation cannot, by itself, defeat entitlement to the higher scale where the teacher possessed the higher relevant qualification. The Larger Bench also examined ROPA 1998, G.O. No. 795 of 1993 and G.O. No. 417 of 2000, and explained the interaction between the staff-pattern provisions and the separate rules governing pay. 11. The statutory foundation for the claim is supplied by Rule 12(3) of ROPA 1998, as incorporated through Memorandum No. 25-SE(B)/IM-102/98 4 dated 12 February 1999. The Rule expressly provides that “all teachers including Physical Education teachers and librarians of Secondary Schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications or who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or groups relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications.” Thus, the Rule does not make the higher scale dependent upon the existence of a separately sanctioned postgraduate post in Physical Education. More importantly, the qualification in question must be relevant to the teaching/appointment. An M.P.Ed. qualification possessed by a teacher appointed to teach Physical Education satisfies that requirement in the clearest possible manner. This position is reinforced by G.O. No. 795-Edn(S) dated 22 November 1993, which specifically recognised that Physical Education teachers possessing Master's degrees in Physical Education from recognised Universities would be entitled to the higher scale in relaxation of the staff pattern. 12. Accordingly, in the case of a Physical Education teacher who obtained his Master's degree in Physical Education before entering service in 2001, the stronger legal conclusion is that he is entitled to the postgraduate scale of pay, notwithstanding the fact that his appointment was formally made in the graduate/pass category. The reason is not that acquisition of a higher qualification automatically creates an independent right to higher pay in every 5 case; rather, the entitlement flows from the specific statutory and governmental scheme applicable to teachers under ROPA 1998, read with the special provisions relating to Physical Education, where the higher qualification is in the very subject of appointment and there was no separate postgraduate Physical Education post. 13. A teacher of Physical Education who had already obtained a recognised Master's degree in Physical Education before entering service cannot be denied the postgraduate scale merely because, there being no separately sanctioned postgraduate post in Physical Education, he was appointed against the available graduate-category post or because the School Service Commission mentioned him in the graduate category. His higher qualification is directly relevant to the subject of his appointment and falls squarely within Rule 12(3) of ROPA 1998. The ratio in Partha Chatterjee (supra), as affirmed and authoritatively explained by the Larger Bench in Utpal Kanti Karan (supra), makes it clear that the staff pattern and the nomenclature of the post cannot be utilised to deprive such a teacher of the pay scale corresponding to his pre-existing postgraduate qualification. 14. In this regard the Court is also inclined to mention the Division Bench’s judgment in Prasanta Kanti Bose versus State of West Bengal (2006) 2 CHN Cal 164 and (Pabitra Mohanta @ Mahanta versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.) vide order dated July 27, 2026 in WPA 23078 of 2017. 6 15. The Court finds that the petitioner’s case is to be considered as squarely covered under the ratio of the judgments and orders as referred to above. 16. In such circumstances, let this writ petition be disposed of directing the respondent no. 3/District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Nadia to immediately consider the petitioner’s representation dated May 31, 2004 specifically in the light of the ratio decided by the Court in the judgments as discussed above and taking into consideration the applicable Rules, positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. 17. The writ petition is disposed of. 18. The respondent no. 3 shall pass a reasoned order unless he is convinced about entitlement of the writ petitioner to the higher pay scale. 19. Needless is to say that in case the said respondent is of the opinion inconsonance with the judgments as discussed above that the petitioner is entitled for grant of higher pay scale, he shall take all immediately forward steps for rendering consequent benefit including pay fixation and payment of arrear to the writ petition. 20. The writ petition is disposed of. 21. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)