21.08.2026 Sl. No.18 Ct. No.14 ss IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 4593 of 2026 Tapati Paul versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. , Mr. Anindya Bose Mr. Santanu Maji Ms. Debrani Mondal Mr. Chandan Das …for the petitioner Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh Mr. Asit Kumar De … for the State Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick Mr. Biman Halder … for the DPSC, Hooghly , 1. Report filed by the State furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (PE), Hooghly dated 7th August, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities for correction/modification of the petitioner’s date of option under ROPA, 2019 and refix the petitioner’s pay by granting her the revised pay structure from the appropriate date as per law upon setting aside the Memo No.16/DPSC, Hooghly dated 2nd April, 2024 issued by the Chairperson, Hooghly District Primary School Council. 3. The petitioner contends that she joined as an Assistant Teacher in Ankuti Primary School within Jangipara West Circle under Hooghly District Primary School on 19th June, 2010 and subsequently, she was 2 transferred to Netaji Subhas Primary School under Rishra Circle, District Hooghly, where presently she is working as an Assistant Teacher. On 21st September, 2020 the petitioner submitted her option under ROPA, 2019 under Annexure II of “i-osms”. In the system generated option form, the date of option showed as 1st January, 2016 and therefore, the petitioner did not get any opportunity to elect the date of revised pay structure as per her own choice. Due to system generated date of option as 1st January, 2016 in the option form, the petitioner has been incurring huge financial loss every month. On 5th June, 2023, the petitioner made a representation before the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Hooghly for redressal of her grievance, however, such prayer of the petitioner for changing the date of option was turned down by the concerned authority stating that there was no provision in ‘i-osms’ portal to rectify the date of option from the Council’s end. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Anindya Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that on 21st September, 2020, the petitioner submitted her option under ROPA, 2019 under Annexure II of “i-osms”. The option under ROPA, 2019 was automatically given effect from 1st Janaury, 2016 as it was system generated and could not be changed at the time of submission of the 3 option. However, the petitioner intended to opt for the date 1st August, 2019. The pay fixation of the petitioner has been made under ROPA, 2019 with effect from 1st January, 2016, thereby resulting in reduction in the pay of the petitioner. On 5th June, 2023, the petitioner made a representation before the concerned authority seeking for pay fixation under ROPA, 2019 taking into consideration the option date as 1st August, 2019. Such representation has been turned down on the ground that clause 6(4) of the notification of ROPA, 2019 provides that option once exercised shall be final. Referring to clause 17 of the notification under ROPA, 2019, he submits that, if any question arises relating to interpretation of any provision of the said memorandum, the same shall be referred to the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal for taking a decision which will be final. In the present case, no such steps have been taken. Further proviso to clause 5 provides that an employee may elect for a date between 1st August, 2016 and 25th September, 2019. He seeks for appropriate orders. 5. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, learned Advocate representing the State-respondent submits that once an option has been exercised the same is final and cannot be changed as per clause 6(4) of the ROPA Rules, 2019. 6. Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, learned advocate appearing for the respondent District Primary School 4 Council, Hooghly submits that the petitioner in the year 2020 out of her own volition gave the option date as 1st January, 2016. After lapse of a considerable period of time, the petitioner is raising such issue for correction/modification of the option date. Rule 6(4) clearly provides that the option once exercised is final and, therefore, the order of the District Primary School Council, Hooghly rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for correction/modification of the option date should not be interfered with. 7. Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the only issue which falls for consideration is whether the Chairman, Hooghly District Primary School Council was justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to change the date of option in respect of ROPA, 2019. 8. The petitioner has made categorical assertion that since the date of option of 1st January, 2016 was system generated option, therefore, the petitioner did not get any opportunity to elect the date of revised pay structure as per her own choice. On perusal of Annexure II i.e. i-osms form of option submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P15 to the writ petition), it is found that the petitioner herself has submitted such form after putting her signature. Therefore, to contend that the date of option, i.e. 1st January, 2016 is system generated does not stand to reason. The memorandum being No.437-SE(P&B)/SL/5S-408/19 dated 13th December, 2019 of ROPA Rule, 2019 5 particularly, clause 6(4) clearly provides that the option once exercised shall be final. 9. Moreover, the option in Annexure II was submitted on 21st September, 2020. The petitioner did not raise any grievance immediate thereto. The grievance has been raised only on 5th June, 2023 i.e. after a lapse of more than two years. Such delay has not been explained. 10. Although it has been vociferously argued on behalf of the petitioner referring to clause 17 that, if any question arises relating to interpretation of any provision of the said memorandum, the same shall be referred to the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal for taking a decision which will be final, however, nothing specific has been placed before this Court concerning question of interpretation of any clause of ROPA, 2019, hence such argument does not stand to reason. 11. Moreso, no case is made out by the petitioner either in her representation or pleadings in the writ petition as per the circumstances of proviso to clause 5 of ROPA, 2019. 12. In the above conspectus, the writ petition falls short of merit. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 4593 of 2026 stands dismissed. 14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 15. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 17. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)