ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing for the State questions why two writ petitions are made but it was submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 11180(W) of 2009, was moved against memo issued by the Director of School Education and that was the subject-matter but in this writ petition order impugned was passed which is the subject-matter of challenge but the issues in both the writ applications are same.
(2.) The writ petitioner in this writ application is aggrieved against the impugned action on the part of the respondent authorities for sudden stoppage of increment granted on account of acquiring higher qualification by the petitioner on two stages, one in 1990 and subsequently in 1996. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the writ petitioner was allowed to get such benefit for a long time but suddenly and surprisingly in June, 2008 those increments were stopped. It was submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get such benefit in view of the Circular and since this improvement took place prior to 2005, before coming into force of Control and Expenditure Act, 2005.
(3.) Nobody appears for the State respondents. No affidavit was filed. It appears that in view of the Circular prevailing the writ petitioner is entitled to get the benefit and the respondent authorities are fully aware of the same and for that reason they started giving such benefit in favour of the writ petitioner but such higher scale of pay was stopped in June, 2008.;