TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) The State authorities have preferred the instant writ petition assailing the judgment dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 1646 of 1998.
(2.) Records reveal that the original application was filed before the learned Tribunal by the respondents herein stating, inter alia, that they were appointed as Supervisors in various projects under the Integrated Child Development Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ICDS) under the Social Welfare Department of the Government of West Bengal and that though they were discharging identical nature of job like that of the Inspectors of Relief, they were illegally placed in scale no.9 (Rs.380/ - to 910/ -) instead of the scale no.10 (Rs.420/ - to 1050/ -) which was being enjoyed by the said Inspectors of Relief on the basis of earlier order passed in a writ petition preferred by the said Inspectors of Relief. The respondents were denied such benefits as they were not parties to the said writ petition. Aggrieved by such discrimination practiced by the State authorities, the respondents herein along with some other Supervisors preferred an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Two other writ petitions were preferred by other groups of Supervisors. The said writ petitions, being Matter No.1272 of 1990, Matter No.1817 of 1990 and Matter No.2176 of 1990 were analogously heard and disposed of by a judgment dated 20th November, 1991 directing the State authorities to grant identical scale of pay, being the scale no.10, as granted to the Inspectors of Relief vide Finance Department notification No.7038 -F dated 20th June, 1988 together with the benefits of revision of pay under the Revision of Pay and Allowance Rules (hereinafter referred to as ROPA Rules), 1981 and 1990. Under the ROPA Rules, the scale nos.9, 10 and 11 stood revised to Rs.1260/ - to 2610/ -, Rs.1390/ - to 2790/ - and Rs.1420/ - to 3130/ - respectively. The said judgment was complied with through issuance of a memorandum dated 26th November, 1992. Thereafter 700 Supervisors, similarly situated with the respondents herein, preferred three further writ petitions, being Matter No.1198 of 1993, Matter No.1196 of 1993 and Matter No.1297 of 1993. The said writ petitions were heard and disposed of by judgments dated 24th August, 1995 and 7th December, 1995 directing the State authorities to place the writ petitioners therein in scale no.10 with effect from 1st April, 1991. In compliance of such directions, the State authorities issued memorandum dated 12th August, 1997. In the midst thereof, the Government introduced the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as CAS) vide memorandum no.6075 -F dated 21st June, 1990. The respondents herein upon completion of 10 years of continuous service became entitled to the benefits of the CAS and to avail the next higher scale of pay being the scale No.11. The respondent nos.1 to 10 herein were granted the benefits of CAS and placed in scale no.11 (Rs.1420/ - to 3130/ -) but such benefit was not extended to the other respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached the concerned authorities and in response thereto, the Finance Department on 8th December, 1997 observed, inter alia, that CAS benefit is a scale related benefit and is available to the 1st/2nd higher scale in relation to the basic scale pertaining to the post of Supervisor and as the respondents are already enjoying scale no.10, which is admissible upon completion of 10 years service in terms of CAS, question of grant of further CAS benefit does not occasion. Pursuant to such observation made by the Finance Department, the Deputy Secretary to the Department of Social Welfare passed an order on 3rd April, 1998 reiterating the stand of the Finance Department. Subsequent thereto, the Director of Social Welfare also passed an order on 22nd April, 1998. Challenging the said memoranda OA 1646 of 1998 was preferred and upon contested hearing the same was finally disposed of by the judgment dated 20th September, 2007 quashing the orders impugned with a direction upon the petitioners to consider the case of the applicants/respondents for grant of career advancement benefits. The petitioners were also restrained from withdrawing the benefits from the applicants, who were enjoying the benefits under the said scheme. Aggrieved thereby, the State authorities have preferred the instant writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior government advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents herein approached the learned Tribunal claiming the benefits of scale no.10 on a purported plea that they are similarly situated with the Block Welfare Officers (previously designated as Inspector of Social Welfare). The respondents were appointed in scale no.9 under ROPA 1981 as Supervisors under ICDS. The work discharged by the respondents is in no manner similar to that of the work discharged by the Inspectors of Welfare, who were appointed in scale no.10 through a regular selection process and on the basis of recommendation of the Public Service;