- (1.) Since all the above noted writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law, they are taken up for hearing analogously and are being decided by this common judgment and order.
(2.) The facts of the first petitioner, Ms. Ratna Mitter, who is an approved teacher of the respondent-school in issue and challenges the inaction on the part of the School Authority to extend to the petitioner the benefits of pay scales as revised from time to time by the School Education Department, Government of West Bengal along with the corresponding dearness allowance (for short DA), also cover the other petitioners who are all similarly situated. Sri Saktipada Jana, Ld. Counsel appearing for all the above noted writ petitioners, argues that by a notification of the School Education Department (for short the Department) bearing the No. 641-SE(Law)5S-577/2001 dated 29th May, 2002 it was, inter alia, decided that the authorities of all the DA getting schools recognized by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (for short the Board) in which the State provides the DA component for both the approved teaching and non-teaching staff shall be required to pay salaries at the appropriate scales of pay from their own resources to such approved teaching and non-teaching employees of Government Aided Schools with immediate effect. Sri Jana further argues that by the said notification dated 29th May, 2002, DA at the rate prescribed shall be paid in supersession of all previous orders on the condition that such posts are duly sanctioned by the Government meaning thereby the appointment of both teaching and non-teaching staff to these posts are approved. It was made clear that no school shall claim DA in respect of any nonapproved staff who is not within the sanctioned strength. Sri Jana points out that the notification dated 29th May, 2002 was to take immediate effect and the scales of pay at the rates as fixed by the said notification of 29th May, 2002 were to be in terms of the Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 1998 (for short ROPA 1998). Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revised scales of pay in terms of ROPA 1998 was made notionally effective from 1st January, 1998 with actual effect to be given from 1st April, 1997 in terms of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission. However, by the notification dated 29th May, 2002 such revised scales came into effect immediately, i.e. from 1st June, 2002.
(3.) Therefore, Sri Jana submits that in terms of ROPA 1998 the basic pay of the petitioner ought to have been placed at the scale of Rs. 6000-12000/- as Assistant Teacher having Masters Degree with training qualification. The fixation as on 1st June, 2002 in terms of the notification dated 29th May, 2002 ought to have been at Rs. 7350/- per month. In digression of the condition prescribed by the said notification dated 29th May, 2002, the pay scale of the petitioner which was required to be fixed at Rs. 7350/- effective as on 1st June, 2002, was actually fixed at the said scale of Rs. 7350/- by the School Authority on 16th March, 2012, i.e. after the lapse of nearly a decade. Therefore, the petitioner became entitled to difference in salaries for the period between June, 2002 to March, 2012, since the petitioner only received a salary of Rs. 6000/- instead of Rs. 7350/- as per ROPA 1998 applicable to Masters Degree holders. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also argues that the School Authority implemented the revision of pay scale as directed by the Government from time to time by fixing the basic pay of the petitioner at Rs. 7350/- however to be effective from the month of April, 2012. Under the circumstances, the petitioner became entitled to the difference in salaries for the period between 1st June, 2002 to 16th March, 2012, which is yet to be paid by the School Authority. Sri Jana clarifies that the second limb of the petitioner's argument is that the School Authority failed to pay the DA as disbursed by the State Authority in respect of the revised salaries of the petitioner for the period between June, 2002 to March, 2009. Ultimately, the deficit DA component in respect of the petitioner's salaries was refunded to her on 20th March, 2012. The petitioner is therefore entitled to the difference in the DA component upon revision of pay scale to Rs. 7350/- per month with effect from 1st June, 2002 till 16th March, 2012 during which period the petitioner received only a salary of Rs. 6000/- per month along with the corresponding DA component as refunded to her on 20th March, 2012.;