07.01.2025. PB Sl. No.20. Ct. No.25. WPA 13817 of 2019 With CAN 1 of 2024 Prakash Chandra Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. Arindam Chattopadhyay. ……for the DPSC, Nadia. Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal. ……for the State. The writ petitioner, who is a retired teacher now, has challenged the office memorandum of the Chairman, Nadia, District Primary School Council dated July 4, 2019, in the present case. The respondent authority has declined ‘A’ category scale of pay to the writ petitioner, by dint of the said memo. The facts of the case are narrated in a nutshell, as herein below:- The writ petitioner has joined as a primary teacher under the DPSC, Nadia, under non-trained category. During the Session 2005-06, he took admission for one year PTTI course and passed the same in the year 2011. Mr. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has strongly relied on the Notification No.209-SE(EE)/PTTI-7/2011 dated March 4, 2013, to submit that in accordance with the same, the petitioner having completed one year PTTI course, is required to be treated as “trained teacher”. He would further submit that the bridge course would not be compulsory for the writ petitioner in accordance with the said notification, as that would be necessary only for a teacher appointed after December 31, 2005. Learned advocate for the petitioner would refer to the two orders in the appeal being MAT 714 of 2020, that are, dated February 11, 2021 and January 5, 2024 respectively, to submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench has settled in the said appeal the law, that the teacher who has attained one year/two year diploma in the elementary education from the State recognized institutions and appointed as a teacher on or before December 31, 2005, shall be treated as a “trained teacher”. The same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench in WPA 13194 of 2019, which the petitioner also relies on, in this case. Therefore, it is the submission of the writ petitioner that the impugned order is bad in law being in contravention with the observation of the Court in the judgments as mentioned above, and the provisions under the Notification No.209-SE(EE)/PTTI-7/2011 dated March 4, 2013. 2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has sought for an order to set aside of the said impugned order dated July 4, 2019. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate is appearing for the respondent DPSC, Nadia. Mr. Chattopadhyay suggests that the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner’s prayer in the light of the judgments as referred to above. The Court has carefully gone through the Notification No.209-SE(EE)/PTTI-7/2011 dated March 4, 2013. Let the relevant portions be quoted as hereinbelow:- “ii) Teachers completed one year Diploma in Primary Teacher Training Court and appointed after 31.12.2005 and subsequently covered one year Bridge Course through NCTGE recognized institution; iii) Teachers who have attained 1 yr./2yrs. Diploma in Elementary Education from State recognized institutions and appointed as teacher on or before 31.12.2005 shall be treated as “trained teacher”. The petitioner has been appointed on October 29, 1999, and thereafter he was inducted in the PTTI course during the Session 2005-06. He completed the course in the year 2011, after declaration the result thereof. Therefore, the petitioner would be covered under Clause (ii) of the said Notification No.209- SE(EE)/PTTI-72011 dated March 4, 2013, and would not be required compulsorily to cover one year bridge course from the recognized institution. 3 Furthermore, it is found that the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Appeal Bench in MAT 714 of 2020 would squarely be applicable in the case of the writ petitioner, in so far as the Court has held that a teacher, who has attained one year PTTI course from any recognized institution and appointed as teacher on or before December 31, 2005, shall be treated as a “trained teacher”. Therefore, in view of the fact that the present writ petitioner being appointed before December 31, 2005, that is on October 29, 1999, would be covered under the same principle. In that view of the discussions as made above, the Court finds that the decision of the Chairman, Nadia, District Primary School Council, in its order dated July 4, 2019, is based on wrong notion and erroneous interpretation of the relevant rules. Hence, the same is not in conformity with the law and is liable to be set aside being de hors the law. Hence, the present writ petition being WPA 13817 of 2019 is disposed of with the following directions:- i) The impugned order dated July 4, 2019, of the Chairman, Nadia, District Primary School Council is set aside. ii) Let the said authority that is Chairman, Nadia, District Primary School Council, consider the writ petitioner’s prayer for 4 grant of ‘A’ category scale of pay afresh in the light of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Appeal Bench in the orders as mentioned above, that is dated September 11, 2021, and January 8, 2024, in MAT 714 of 2020. iii) It is worth mentioning that since the writ petitioner has retired on February 29, 2020, the differential monetary benefit shall be paid to the petitioner, in case the said respondent decides in favour of the petitioner. iv) Otherwise, let the said respondent pass a reasoned order narrating reasons for refusal of writ petitioner’s prayer, if at all. (v) Let the exercise as above, be concluded by the said respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. The application being CAN 1 of 2024 is also disposed of. Since no affidavit has been called for, allegations made in the writ petition, shall be deemed to have not admitted by the respondents. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties, on compliance of all necessary formalities. 5 (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) 6