15.05.2025. PB Sl. No.35. Ct. No.25. WPA 6584 of 2018 Pijush Kanti Mohanta Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Purnasish Ray. … For the Petitioner. In spite of service of notice by Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, upon the learned advocate appearing for the State respondent, pursuant to this Court’s previous order dated May 1, 2025, no one has represented the said respondent today, when the matter is called on. Hence, the same is taken up for adjudication in absence of the respondent State. The writ petitioner has challenged a letter issued by the Head of the Institution dated May 19, 2017, in which the issuing authority has mentioned that a pay scale following the notification dated July 30, 2009, could not be permissible in case of the writ petitioner. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner’s pay should be re-fixed as per ROPA 2009. The petitioner has been directed thereby for refund of the amount allegedly overdrawn by him for the period from September 2009 to May 31, 2017. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is with regard to the applicability of the provisions under the notification No. 759-SE(S)/2P-1/09 dated July 30, 2009, [in short notification No,”759”]in case of the writ petitioner. Let the relevant portion thereof be extracted as bellow: “In reference to his Memo No.2443-GA/OM-20/2006(Pt.) dated 24.12.2008 on the above noted subject, the undersigned is directed to say that as per existing 2 rules/provision 4(four) increments are allowed to the Asstt. Teachers during their first 5 (five) years of service within which they have to complete the B.Ed. Course approved by NCTE. As during the period of Court Cases continued for the last 3 years, the incumbents’ concerned were unable to even get themselves admitted to the B.Ed. Course in the colleges approved by NCTE, the Governor after careful examination of all the facts and circumstances of the cases has been pleased to allow the incumbents in drawing increments up to the year 2012 as usual and during that period they must have to complete such training approved by NCTE. This is only one time relaxation which is being granted up to the year 2012 and will not be extended beyond that on any ground”. Therefore, by dint of the said notification, one time relaxation was granted to a teacher for obtaining training qualification up to the year 2012. Mr. Ray, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the relevant documents to submit that the petitioner has duly completed his B.Ed. in the year 2011 and hence, the petitioner should be benefitted as per the provisions in the said Government Notification No.759. He says that since the time limit for obtaining training qualification has been extended till 2012 as one time relaxation and since the petitioner has obtained degree, within such prescribed extended period of time that is in the year 2011, the provisions under the said notification would be applicable to the writ petitioner and he should be extended with the benefits as enumerated there under. According to Mr. Roy therefore the impugned order of the Head of the Institution dated May 19, 2017, suffers from gross error and that there would neither be any question of re-fixation of salary of the writ petitioner nor refund by him of any allegedly overdrawn amount. It is conclusively on record that the writ petitioner has obtained B.Ed. Degree in the year 2011. 3 The time limit for obtaining such Degree being extended till 2012, by dint of the said notification No. 759, the petitioner is found to have complied with the same within the said time limit. Hence, there would not be any impediment to treat the petitioner to be duly governed under the notification No. 759. In such view of the matter, the Court finds that the impugned letter dated May 19, 2017, issued by the Head of the Institution to the petitioner that scale of pay following the government notification No.759, could not be permissible in case of the petitioner, is not maintainable. Also, the direction that his pay should be re-fixed as per ROPA-2009 and that the petitioner is obliged to repay the allegedly overdrawn amount appear to be an erroneous and not in conformity with the provision as above. In such view of the facts the Court finds no substance in the letter of the Head of the Institution dated May 19, 2017 and directs the same to be set aside. On the discussion as made above, the instant writ petition is allowed with the following directions:- i) The impugned letter of the Headmaster, Tufanganj Nripendra Narayan Momorial High School dated May 19, 2017, is set aside; ii) The petitioner shall be eligible for grant of appropriate scale of pay pursuant to G. O. No.759-SE(S)/2P-1/09 dated July 30, 2009 and being duly treated as governed under provisions thereof; iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to the due salary/ pay and emoluments as is being drawn by him, by treating him as a trained teacher, who has obtained B.Ed Degree in due course; iv) The respondent Authority shall not be entitled to recover any amount on account of allegedly overdrawn salary by the writ petitioner. 4 The writ petition is disposed of. Since no affidavit is called for in this case, the allegations made in the writ petition, are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)