21st Sept., 2026 Item no.D/L 38 Court No. 24 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 10832 of 2026 In the matter of: Soumendra Nath Mridha …. Petitioner VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Shakti Pada Jana Mr. Subhajyoti Das ….Advocates For the State: Ms. Jayita Dhar Chakraborty Mr. Dipto Kumar Shyamal ….Advocates 1. Affidavits of service filed in Court today are taken on record. 2. The petitioner’s prayer for higher scale of pay stood rejected by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Malda in October, 2010. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition being WP 2569 (W) 2011 which stood dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 14th December, 2011. 3. An appeal from the said order was carried by the petitioner in FMA 1223 of 2012. The said appeal stood dismissed on 3rd June, 2014. The application filed before the Hon’ble Division Bench for restoration of the appeal also stood dismissed by the Court on 23rd September, 2024. 4. On dismissal of the appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge attained finality. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools had been held to be valid. 5. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner intends to reopen the said issue all over again relying on the Larger Bench decision passed in Page 2 the matter of Utpal Kanti Karan Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1274. 6. The petitioner filed a representation before the authority and seeks for a direction upon the authority to consider the same relying upon Utpal Kanti Karan (supra). 7. The Court is of the opinion that as the issue in question stood settled by the District Inspector of Schools way back in October, 2010 and the order of rejection of the petitioner’s prayer was upheld by the learned Single Judge in December, 2011 and further not interfered with by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the year 2014 & 2024, as such, there is hardly any scope to reopen the issue all over again. 8. The same will be hit by the principles of res judicata. The issue once decided by and between the parties is binding in nature and the same cannot be reagitated relying upon a subsequent law laid down by the Court. 9. Moreover, the judgment of the Larger Bench in Utpal Kanti Karan (supra) is prospective in operation. Decisions taken prior thereto cannot and ought not to be re-adjudicated again once after the dispute stood finalized more than a decade back. 10. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, then the same will lead to anomalous consequences as all decisions regarding higher scale of pay taken prior to Utpal Kanti Karan (supra) will be sought to be reopened. The same is not the position of law. There is no such mandate in Utpal Kanti Karan (supra) declaring that the earlier decisions taken on the issue will be rendered bad in law. 11. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Page 3 12. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 13. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)