25.09.2026 Ct. No.652 D/L 22 ( NMD) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) W.P.A. 2800 of 2014 Buddhadeb Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal& Ors. Mr. Gourav Das, Sk. Nayeemul Hoque …for the Petitioner Mr. Dinesh Chandra Singh, Mr. A. Singh ….for the State 1. Affidavit-of-service is filed in Court today, let it be taken on record. 2. The instant writ petition concerns with the issue of grant of higher pay scale to an Assistant Teacher of Physical Education subject, who entered into service with M.P.Ed. qualification but as a B.A., B.P.Ed. category Assistant Teacher. The order of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Murshidabad, dated 06.11.2013, is under challenge in the instant writ petition, by dint of which the said respondent authority has turned down the petitioner's prayer for grant of higher pay scale. 2 3. The reason cited by the said respondent authority in the impugned order for refusal of the petitioner’s prayer for grant of post-graduate scale of pay, inter alia, are that the petitioner joined the service in a post earmarked for pass category of teachers, and also that in accordance with the Government Notification No. 155-SE(B) dated 13.07.1999, the petitioner would not be eligible in accordance with the staff pattern of this school, for grant of post-graduate scale of pay. 4. Mr. Dinesh Chandra Singh, learned advocate, who has been engaged to appear for the State, informs through the other learned advocate, Mr. Anirruddha Singh, that no instruction has yet been received by him in this matter. 5. The issue involved in the instant writ petition is now well-settled through various judgments of this Court. The petitioner has specifically relied upon a judgment of this Court in Partha Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2004(2) CLJ (Cal) 493, and also order of this Court dated 3 11.12.2024 in Md. Tarif Hossain vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P.A 4312 of 2015). 6. Non-applicability of the Government Order No. 155-SE(B)/10M-102/98 dated 13.07.1999 can be found from the judgment of this Court in Partha Chatterjee (supra), where the Court has categorically held and determined that applicability of a particular pay scale to a teacher does not relate or depend upon the approve staff pattern of the school, but their right of equality is the supervening factor. 7. Relevant portion of the judgment of Partha Chatterjee(Supra) is quoted hereinbelow:- "Fixation of different scales of pay for teachers of the same or different aided schools, with the same qualifications, who perform the same duties and functions and are hence equally circumstanced violates principles of equal work for equal pay and offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, more so in the absence of specific rules prescribing the requisite educational qualifications for teachers of different classes". 8. Regarding applicability of post graduate scale of pay to a Physical Education teacher, who is qualified with Master Degree, the Court has held 4 in various judgments, including that by the Hon'ble Larger Bench in the case of Utpal Kanti Karan & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC Online Cal 1274. The issue of grant of higher pay scale should depend upon the rule as applicable to the petitioner, at the relevant point of time. 9. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner concluded his Master's Degree qualification in Physical Education subject, in the year 2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was inducted in service, being recommended on 26.09.2007 by the School Service Commission as a B.A., (pass) B.P.Ed. category teacher and joined in service on 09.10.2007. 10. It appears that the petitioner, long before entering into service, was qualified with a master degree in the relevant subject of Physical Education. Upon joining, the petitioner stood covered under the provisions of ROPA 1999. 11. In that view of the matter, the following provisions of ROPA 1999 5 should have been made applicable in the case of the petitioner to assess whether the petitioner would be entitled for grant of post-graduate scale of pay or not, and not from what date:- Clause 12. (3) All teachers including Physical Education Teachers and Librarians of Secondary Schools who have improved/will improve their qualifications who were appointed with higher qualification in the subjects or groups relevant to their teaching/appointment shall get higher scale of pay appropriate to their qualifications, with effect from the 1st January, 1996 or the date of improving qualification, whichever is later". 12. On careful consideration of the factual background as above as well as the statutory provision as above and the law now well-settled through the various judgments of this Court, including that of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Utpal Kanti Karan (supra), it is found that the petitioner, from the date of his joining in the post, should have been considered to be eligible for grant of post-graduate scale of pay in terms of ROPA 1999. The petitioner being 6 qualified with the Master's degree in Physical Education before entering into service, has been affected due to the mere fact that the State had no post for Master's degree in Physical Education subject. The respondent authority on the basis of misconceived notion and erroneous consideration of the settled law has declined for grant of such benefit to the petitioner. The order of rejection of the petitioner’s prayer by the respondent no.3 /D.I., for grant of post graduate scale of pay, is therefore not sustainable and liable to the set aside. On the basis of the discussion as made accordingly, this writ petition is to succeed. 13. Hence, the present writ petitioner being WPA 2800 of 2014 is allowed and disposed with the directions as follows:- (i) The impugned order dated 06.11.2013 of the District Inspector of School (Secondary Education), Murshidabad is hereby set aside; (ii) Let the said D.I./respondent no. 3 take appropriate steps for 7 immediate grant of post graduate pay scale of the present petitioner by issuing appropriate order, with effect from date of his entering into service; (iii) Necessary pay fixation be made within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order; (iv) The arrear salary may immediately be disbursed the petitioner, maximum within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation. 15. No order as to costs. 16. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)