Kamal Pal v. The State of West Bengal

4813 of 2018 (Smt. Pali Bhowmick-vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.). It has been submitted that this Court while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 10th March, 2022 granted incremental benefits in spite of not having B.Ed degree during the relevant period in consideration 3 of the said Government order dated 30th July,

#2009. Lastly, it has been submitted that the objection raised by the Assistant Director of Accounts at page 44 of the writ petition against grant of incremental benefits from 1st February, 2006 to 1st February, 2007 is not tenable in view of the said Government order dated 30th July, 2009 for extending the benefit of 18 years continuous service there is no need to recast pay of the petitioner on withdrawal on such incremental benefits for the period from 1st February, 2006 to 1st February, 2007 since petitioner was entitled to the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, petitioner has prayed for extension of 18 years service benefits in his favour without interfering with the sanction of incremental benefits for the said period from 1st February, 2006 to 1st February, 2007. Mr. Saha, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents and has defended the observations/objections raised by the Assistant Director of Accounts in the matter of grant of 18 years service benefits to the petitioner. On placing reliance on the report filed on behalf of the State respondents it has been submitted in reference to 4 one letter dated 31st August, 2021 of the Assistant Director of Accounts addressed to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata that benefit of Government order dated 30th July, 2009 available to those teachers who were unable to complete their B.Ed course during last three years preceding the date of issuance of said Government order dated 30th July, 2009. According to the State respondents since the period of five years completed on 14th February, 2006 therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get the incremental benefits relating to B.Ed degree for the period of 1st February, 2006 to 1st February, 2007. This Court has heard the learned advocates representing the parties and perused the pleadings exchanged by the parties including the materials available on record. Since the petitioner was appointed in the post of Assistant Teacher on 15th February, 2001 and completed B.Ed course for the session 2005- 2006, this Court does not find any impediment in granting the benefit of Government order dated 30th July, 2009. By the said Government order dated 30th July, 2009, it has been unequivocally provided that due to pendency of Court cases for last three years the teachers were unable to even get 5 themselves admitted to the B.Ed course in the colleges approved by the NCTE and therefore as one time measure the relaxation relating to acquiring B.Ed qualification within a period of five years from the date of appointment was granted upto 2012. The stand taken by the State respondents as it emanates from the report filed in the form of affidavit cannot be countenanced since it has been interpreted in a way which has not been contemplated in the said Government order dated 30th July, 2009. Attempt has been made to confine the benefit of the Government order dated 30th July, 2009 to only those teachers who were unable to complete their B.Ed in last three years preceding the date of issuance of said Government order dated 30th July, 2009 as it appears. In addition thereto, this Court on previous occasion by passing order dated 10th March, 2022 on a writ petition being WPA 4813 of 2018 (Smt. Pali Bhowmick –vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.) has already granted identical benefit in favour of the teacher based on the said Government order dated 30th July, 2009 in spite of the fact that teacher was unable to obtain B.Ed qualification within the period of five years. 6 In view of aforesaid discussion, objections raised by the Assistant Director of Accounts being the respondent no.8 as it appears from page 44 of the writ petition stand set aside. The concerned respondent authorities are directed to extend 18 years service benefit to the petitioner without interfering with the incremental benefit which has been granted to the petitioner for the period from 1st February, 2006 to 1st February, 2007 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)