- (1.) NONE appears on behalf of the respondents when the matter is called on. No accommodation is prayed for.
(2.) ON January 18, 2013 also none appeared on behalf of the respondents. In order to give them one more chance the hearing of this matter was adjourned on that date. This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent No.3 under Memo No.391 -L(3) dated August 28, 2012. By virtue of the impugned order the prayer of the petitioner for granting final approval of his postgraduate scale of pay in his favour in connection with his services as an Assistant Teacher of Haldia High School District -Purba Medinipur, was rejected.
(3.) IT appears from the materials on record that the service of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher of the school under reference was approved by the respondent No.3 with effect from August 11,1976. The petitioner obtained Master Degree in relevant subject in the year 1984. The benefit of higher scale of pay was provisionally extended to the petitioner with effect from May 1, 1984 by virtue of an order passed by the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE) under his Memo No.6387 -S dated June 3, 1989. Subsequently the above benefit was withdrawn by the respondent No.3 with a direction for recovery of the amount paid to the petitioner. The above order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of Suprakas Sahu v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No. 9312 (W) of 2012) and the above writ application was disposed of June 22, 2012. The relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below : "On perusal of the impugned communication, this court does not find that the State authority formed any opinion regarding any fraudulent role played by the petitioner in the process of his erroneous pay fixation. Even though the pay fixation at the higher scale of pay was made by the concerned authority provisionally and the same was not ultimately approved by the higher authority still then, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Kader v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2009(3) SCC, 475, this court hold that the State -respondents are not entitled to recover the excess payment which was made to the petitioner his employer during the tenure of his service. As such, this court holds that the impugned communication cannot be retained on record. The impugned communication appearing at page 49 of the writ petition stands quashed." ;