While allowing a petition filed by an accountant in Calcutta Deaf and Dumb School since Jan 18, 1999, who had sought a higher pay scale which was rejected by the Director of Mass Education Extension, West Bengal (Director of MEE), the Calcutta High Court directed the Director of MEE to re-fix the pay scale of Petitioner.

At the same time, the High Court directed the Respondents to release the arrear pay to the Petitioner, commensurate with his pay on re-fixation of the scales of pay with effect from Feb 03, 2017.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rabindranath Samanta reiterated that “since the case of parity in pay scale has been established on golden constitutional principles of equality emanating from Article 14 of the Constitution, the decision of the State Government as reflected in the memorandum dated 30th March, 1999 does not survive. In such scenario, the reason assigned in the impugned order by the Director of Mass Education Extension that he is not authorized to pass any order allowing higher scale of pay to the petitioner are not acceptable since such reasons affront the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution”.

The Bench added that since the Petitioner had retired from service, the Respondents would issue revised pension payment order to him commensurate with his re-fixed scale of pay immediately after re-fixation of his scale of pay and pay the differential retrial benefits to the Petitioner on modified or revised Pension Payment Order.

Advocate Debjani Sengupta appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Supriyo Chattopadhyay appeared for the Respondent.

In the present case, the Petitioner was an accountant in ‘The Calcutta Deaf and Dumb School’ since Jan 18, 1999, however long after his appointment, the Petitioner came to know that in other similarly sponsored institutions under the Mass Education Extension Directorate, Government of West Bengal, the incumbents holding the post of Accountants were fetching higher scale of pay of Rs. 4000-8850/-. The Petitioner had filed a representation before the Director of MEE seeking the scale of pay of Rs. 1260-2610/- (unrevised) corresponding to revised scale of pay of Rs. 4000-8850/-. Upon not receiving response to the representation made by him, he filed a writ petition which was disposed of by this Court directing the Director of MEE to decide his representation by a reasoned order, but the same was rejected without any reasonable classification.

After considering the submission, the High Court found that the Petitioner had unequivocally showed and established that the post of Accountant held by him had a similarity or identity with the posts as above of the Sponsored Handicapped Educational Institutions under the control of the Directorate of MEE as well as the Mass Education Department, Government of West Bengal.

The High Court stated that the Petitioner stood on the same footing as other accountants of Handicapped schools who were allowed a higher pay scale, and in such a scenario the reason assigned by the Director of MEE that he was not authorized to pass any order allowing higher scale of pay to the petitioner was not acceptable since such reasons affront the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Bench set aside the order passed by the Director of MEE and held the Petitioner entitled to get pay as per the pay scale of Rs. 1260-2610/- (unrevised) instead of the scale of Pay of Rs.1040 -1920/-.

Cause Title: Promit Kumar Choudhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment



Calcutta High CourtJustice Rabindranath Samanta

Pankaj Bajpai