- (1.) Mr. Barua, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner and submits, by the said memo reason for denial of the benefit was attributed to the provisions of Sections 4, 16 and 20 of the West Bengal Schools (Control & Expenditure) Act, 2005. According to him, there can be no application of those provisions to the case of the petitioner and hence, the reason in the impugned memo is perverse. In support of his submission he relies on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chowdhury Moniruzzaman vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) CLJ (Cal) 327 wherein it was held that the Ph.D degree obtained by the petitioner in that case as awarded in the convocation on 8th May, 2009, which entitled him to receive two additional increments provided for in Clause 5, Rule 12 of ROPA 1998.
(2.) Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing for the State hands up copy of the GO 37-SE/ES(S)/5P-37/2010 dated 5th January, 2012 and submits, the cut off date for granting such additional increments was thereby extended to 18th August, 2005 i.e. till before the publication of the West Bengal Schools (Control & Expenditure) Act, 2005. This government order was not considered in Chowdhury Moniruzzaman (supra). Hence that judgment could not be relied on as applicable in the present case.
(3.) He submits further, it would appear from the impugned order that the appointment of the petitioner as headmaster was on the recommendation of the West Bengal School Service Commission. Hence, the petitioner having been appointed as headmaster through the West Bengal School Service Commission his pay will be fixed in the scale of pay as per the qualification mentioned by the West Bengal School Service Commission. When the approval of the petitioner having been appointed as headmaster was given on 23rd May, 2006 the petitioner had his qualification as MA, B.Ed. Thus, the petitioner was not entitled to the additional increments claimed. Such claim was rejected by the impugned order which required no interference.;