Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 47051 (CAL)

SAMIR RAKSHIT v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

WPA/1573/2026 · 2026-10-06

Suvra Ghosh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

October 6, 2026 (19) ARDR In the High Court at Calcutta Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction WPA 1573 of 2026 Samir Rakshit Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. Adv. Deborshi Dhar, … for the petitioner. Adv. Rounak Ghosh, …for the School. Adv. Ashoke Kr. Singhi Adv. Tuhin Kumar Roy, … for the State. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The 7th respondent is not represented despite service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Mathematics at Balakuti High School vide appointment letter dated 10th October, 2001 and joined service on 16th October, 2001. He was subsequently appointed as the Headmaster of Rajathar High School vide memo dated 24th July, 2019 and joined the said post on 31st July, 2019. The school was upgraded under the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education as a Higher Secondary School by virtue of memo dated 10th June, 2002 and the petitioner was entitled to receive additional increment of 3% as Headmaster of the school by virtue of a letter issued by the District Inspector of Schools 2 (Secondary Education), Jalpaiguri on 7th February, 2014 in terms of a government order dated 10th February, 2010. However, by a subsequent notification issued on 22nd March, 2017, the Joint Secretary (Secondary) to the Government of West Bengal withdrew the additional increment allowed in favour of the Headmasters including the petitioner. The Headmasters of several schools approached this Court in a writ petition being WPA 23867 of 2017 assailing the said notification. By a judgment delivered on 7th May, 2024 a co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition and held the Headmasters to be entitled to the benefit of additional 3% increment. The petitioner seeks implementation of the said order before the concerned authority. Learned counsel for the State opposes the contention of the petitioner. Upon consideration of the submission made on behalf of the parties and material on record, particularly the judgment delivered by this Court earlier, the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Cooch Behar, being the 4th respondent herein, is directed to take necessary steps for resumption of the additional 3% increment in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court with effect from 1st July, 2010 within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 3 The service book of the petitioner be amended/rectified accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh, J)