10.01.2025 Item No.50 gd/ssd WPA/25749/2008 ALOKE KUMAR MUKHERJEE VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. IA NO: CAN/1/2009(Old No:CAN/7061/2009), CAN/2/2021 Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh, Mr. Arabinda Pathak, Ms. Suparna Paul ..for the Petitioner. Mr. Mihir Kundu ..for the State. The petitioner claims to be a graduate in Science and also possessing B.Ed. qualification. The petitioner was appointed in Saraju Prasad Junior Engineering Institute (for short, “the Institute”) in the Post of Laboratory Assistant in the month of June, 1984 in the scale of Rs.300-685 plus admissible dearness allowance and other allowances. After successful completion of the probationary period the petitioner was confirmed in the said post. In the year 1990, the Director of Technical Education, Government of West Bengal introduced another Industrial Training Institute Trade Courses in 19 Junior Technical Schools in West Bengal and, as a result of which, there was no work for Laboratory Assistant in any of the Junior Technical Schools wherein ITI Trade Courses have been introduced by 2 the Government of West Bengal. Thereafter, the Institute directed the petitioner to take workshop calculation and Science Classes of ITI Trade Courses in the said Institute vide letter dated 6th November, 1991. Since the petitioner was performing the duties of higher post, he submitted a representation claiming higher remuneration on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP 966 of 1997 which was disposed of by an order dated 16th May, 1997 by directing the Director of Technical Education, West Bengal to pass a reasoned order upon considering the representation made by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the Director of Technical Education, West Bengal passed a reasoned order vide Office Memorandum dated 14th August, 1997 wherein it has been suggested by the Joint Director that the petitioner may be considered for an extra remuneration as the work assigned to him was of higher responsibility in nature. However, since that authority had no authority to sanction remuneration, the matter was referred to the Department of Technical Education and Training for sanction of remuneration to the petitioner. 3 The Director of Technical Education by a memo dated 12th November, 1997 requested the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Technical Education and Training to sanction extra remuneration to the petitioner at the rate as may be deemed fit by the Government with effect from 7th November, 1991. Since even after such recommendation the Finance Department did not take any further action, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP 2445 of 1997 which was disposed of by an order dated January 7, 1998 by directing the Finance Department to examine the petitioner’s case and to pass a final order within the time limit as may be specified in the said order. It would be relevant to point out at this stage that this Hon’ble Court in the order dated January 7, 1998 in WP 2445 of 1997 specifically observed that the petitioner was undisputedly working as an Instructor in Science, and as such, he was entitled to some extra remuneration as suggested by the Director of Technical Education but what would be such remuneration has to be assessed by the Finance Department by taking into consideration the workload which the petitioner has been discharging at the relevant point of time and also keeping in view the other precedents. Thus, the entitlement of the 4 petitioner to some extra remuneration over and above the remuneration that the petitioner was entitled to for the Post of Laboratory Assistant is not in dispute. The issue which requires to be adjudicated/decided by the Finance Department is only with regard to the quantum of such extra remuneration and not the entitlement in respect thereof. However, an Instructor in Science of the said Institute retired due to superannuation on 31st July, 2006 and the Secretary of the said Institute by an Office Order dated 4th August, 2006 directed the petitioner to take classes of workshop calculation and Science subjects of all trades of the ITI students. Upon going through the said office order, this court finds that the petitioner was directed to discharge the duties which was being discharged by the erstwhile Instructor in Science who superannuated on 31st July, 2006. Record reveals that the Secretary of the said Institute by a letter dated 8th November, 2006 forwarded the resolution of the governing body of the Institute to the Director of Industrial Training. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to the issuance of the Office Order dated 4th August, 2006 5 the petitioner was entitled to some extra remuneration as directed by this court by order dated January 7, 1998 in WP 2445 of 1997. He further submits that immediately upon issuance of the Office Order dated 4th August, 2006 the petitioner is discharging the duties of the Instructor by taking classes of workshop calculation and Science of Fitter and Tumer Trades. Mr. Bandyopadhyay submits that since the petitioner had been discharging the duties of a higher post with effect from 4th August, 2006 till the date of his superannuation, he is entitled to the salary and other benefits as that of an Instructor. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others reported at (2013) 4 SCC 152. Mr. Kundu, learned Advocate appears for the respondents. He submits that the case of the petitioner for higher remuneration was forwarded to the competent authority but till date no decision on such recommendation has yet been taken by the authorities. Since a recommendation was made by a competent authority and this Hon’ble Court by order 6 dated January 7, 1998 directed the Finance Department to examine the petitioner’s case and to pass a final order upon observing that the petitioner is entitled to some extra remuneration as suggested by the Director of Technical Education, this court is of the considered view that a direction should be passed upon the appropriate authority of the Government to take a decision in the light of the observations contained in the order dated January 7, 1998. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents. After going through the said affidavit-in- opposition this court finds that the denials made in the said affidavit are only vague. No specific case has been made out denying the claim of the petitioner as made out in the writ petition. The fact that the petitioner had been discharging the duties of higher responsibility has also not been denied by the respondent authorities in the said affidavit-in- opposition. However, no reasons have been set out in the affidavit-in-opposition as to why the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits claimed by him. The claim of the petitioner for higher remuneration prior to the issuance of the Office Order dated 4th August, 2006 is required to be decided by the competent authority in the light of the 7 observations contained in the order dated January 7, 1998 passed in WP 2445 of 1997. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for higher remuneration with effect from the date of issuance of the Office Order dated 4th August, 2006 till the date of superannuation of the petitioner is concerned, this court feels that liberty is to be granted to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation before the concerned authority ventilating his claim with regard to the higher scale of pay. Let a comprehensive representation be submitted by the petitioner before the Director of Industrial Training, being the 2nd respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order. The said representation shall be accompanied by a server copy of this order. If such representation is submitted before the 2nd respondent, the said respondent is directed to consider the claim made by the petitioner in the said representation and to dispose of the same in the light of the observations made in the order dated January 7, 1998 passed in WP 2445 of 1997 as well as the observations made hereinbefore. It would be open to the petitioner to place reliance on any Government orders, notifications as well as any decisions in support of the claim for 8 higher scale of pay at the time of hearing before the said authority. The entire exercise shall be completed by the 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of the representation pursuant to this order. In case the 2nd respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to higher remuneration, such authority shall immediately forward the papers as well as other documents to the concerned authority for taking further steps in that regard. It is however made clear that the said respondent shall not reopen any issue which has been decided by this court. Accordingly, the writ petition and the applications stand disposed of. Since the affidavit-in-opposition is not on record and Mr. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that he is not in possession of the original affidavit-in-opposition, photocopy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the learned Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner is taken on record. The photocopy of such affidavit-in-opposition shall be treated to be the original till the original affidavit-in-opposition is filed before this court. There will be no order as to costs. 9 Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on usual formalities. (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)