Ct. No.4 D/L 09.09.2025 (Naba) 02 W.P.S.T. 194 of 2012 Gurudas Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, Mr. Gourab Maiti ...Petitioner Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. AGP, Mr. Somnath Naskar ...State Respondents 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State. 2. An issue regarding the petitioner’s placement in the gradation list way back in the year 1984 and the consequential seniority and dues under the head ‘salary’ have undergone protracted litigation. In the series of litigation, an order was passed in C.R. No. 561 (W) of 1984, directing the authorities to determine the seniority of the petitioner on the basis of his continuous length of service from 27.05.1969. The petitioner was also held entitled to consequential benefits. The State went in appeal and F.M.A.T. No. 1120 of 1988 was filed which was dismissed. The writ petitioner, thus, preferred a contempt proceeding and during the contempt proceeding, the authorities had produced a calculation chart which is apparent from an order dated 07.09.1993, passed in C.R. 2 No. 2650 (W) of 1990. The order records that a final calculation of the petitioner’s basic pay was made as on 01.05.1991 at ₹.2070/-. The petitioner, however, was not satisfied with this fixation and was claiming parity with one Hrishikesh Roy whose fixation was done at ₹.2135/-. The Court rejected the final calculation submitted by the State and proceeded to find the authorities to be guilty of contempt. The order passed in the contempt proceedings became the subject matter of an appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 1467 of 1995, filed before the Apex Court. The Apex Court allowed the appeal by an order dated 09.02.1995. The order passed by the contempt Court was set aside. The contempt petition was also dismissed. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that dismissal of the contempt petition would not preclude the respondents from pursuing any remedy available in law to achieve fixation of his pay on the post of Upper Division Assistant. With such liberty, the appeal was allowed. The Judgement is reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1359. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Apex Court, the petitioner made representation/s moved the Tribunal and the writ Court on couple of occasions. The petitioner in the meantime retired on 31st August, 2001. After his retirement, the pay was fixed and his pensionary 3 dues were determined. In the course of fixation certain recovery arose which was finally laid to rest by the impugned order passed in O.A. No. 960 of 2003. 3. Insofar as the recovery is concerned, the petitioner has no grievance today. However, any further benefits of fixation of his salary with effect from 01.05.1991 was not allowed to the petitioner by the impugned order of the Tribunal. 4. Before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short), the petitioner relied upon the observation recorded in the order of the High Court in C.R. No. 2650 (W) of 1990 which was disposed of on 07.09.1993. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that since the amount of ₹.2070/- was proposed by the respondent authorities themselves by way of a calculation chart filed in the contempt proceedings his basic pay with effect from 01.05.1991 may be fixed at ₹.2070/- and a consequential fixation of his pensionary dues may be undertaken which is likely to benefit the petitioner. 6. The learned A.G.P. on the other hand submits that the petitioner’s claim is illusive. The alleged chart has not been produced and the petitioner has produced a chart claiming to be a recreation of the chart submitted in the contempt 4 proceedings and based on such misrepresentation the petitioner approached the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the petitioner’s claim. 7. We have made a specific query to the learned counsel representing the petitioner, whether the petitioner can substantiate his claim for fixation of his basic pay at ₹.2070/- with effect from 01.05.1991, having regard to his period of service and the service rules governing his pay. 8. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that no such case has been made out and the petitioner is relying upon a representation made by the respondent authorities and recorded on 07.09.1993, in the proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 2650 (W) of 1990. 9. In view of such stand and since the claim is not substantiated by the writ petitioner with reference to his entitlement based on length of service or any rule governing fixation, we are not inclined to turn the clock back to an order passed on 07.09.1993, wherein the pay claimed by the writ petitioner today was proposed by the respondent authorities in a calculation chart, which also was not accepted by the Court. 10. As noticed above, thereafter the order in which the amount was recorded was set aside by the Apex 5 Court which is apparent from the decision (AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1359). Pursuant to the O.A./s and representation/s filed by the petitioner thereafter the fixation has been done based on which the petitioner is getting his pensionary dues. In absence of any infirmity pointed out in the fixation based on any legitimate basis or in absence of a claim to any other pay scale substantiated with reference to the petitioner’s service rule or the rules governing fixation of pay, we are not inclined to pass any further order so as to grant the petitioner the scale claimed by him. 11. We find no reason to interfere with the judgement and order dated 17.09.2010 passed in O.A. No. 960 of 2003. The Writ Petition being W.P.S.T. No. 194 of 2012 is disposed of. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)