- (1.)Ramendra Nath Mukherjee, the petitioner above named, joined the State service as Electrical Wireman with effect from January 5, 1965 in a scale of Rs.80-105/-. He got promotion with effect from February 15, 1977 in the post of Electrician (work charge) in the scale of Rs.230-425/-. He was confirmed in the post of Work-Charged Electrician with effect from February 17, 1981 in a scale of Rs.300-600. He claimed benefit of a circular dated July 29, 1970 followed by a clarificatory circular dated April 22, 1971 issued by the State. From the Memo dated March 12, 1976 appearing at page 84, we find that the Special Officer & Ex-Officio Assistant Secretary to the Agriculture and C. D. Department informed the Chief Engineer (Agriculature), West Bengal that vide circular dated June 6, 1970 issued by C & I Department followed by a further letter dated April 22, 1971, the supporting technical staff under various Government Departments holding National Trade Certificate from the Industrial Training Institutes or its equivalent certificates diploma awarded after successful completion of training course for a total period of two years after passing school final examination, would be considered as equivalent to sub-overseers certificate giving right to them to claim for the fixation at the scale of Rs.175-325/- as per ROPA 1961 and subsequently at Rs.300-600 under ROPA 1971. Such benefit was extended to the Electricians of Agricultural Engineering Department vide such Memo dated March 12, 1976 to be effective retrospectively from April 1, 1961. The petitioner claimed benefit as per such Memo appearing at page 84 inter alia claiming, although he did not successfully pass out Higher Secondary Examination class XI he should be considered as class-X passed following another circular of the Government. Taking his qualification as per his ITI Certificate he should be given the benefit of the Memo dated March 12, 1976 appearing at page 84. Pertinent to note, he was working under the Department of Irrigation whereas such Memo was written to the Department of Agricultural Engineering. The learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that at some point of time it was the same Department until the Irrigation was separated from Agriculture. He however could not draw our attention to any such circular. The petitioner approached the learned single Judge of this Court by filing a writ petition. The learned single Judge, vide judgment and order dated May 13, 1991 in C.O. No.4864(W) of 1986 extended the said scale of Rs.300-600 to the petitioner. The State did not prefer any appeal from the said order. The petitioners subsequently filed a modification application. Another learned Judge disposed of the modification application vide judgment and order dated December 22, 1992 appearing at page 71 of the petition. The learned single Judge modified the order by extending the scale of Rs.175-325 as per ROPA 1961 with effect from the date of entry in service and subsequently to the scale of Rs.300-600 with effect from February 18, 1977 when he got the post of Electrician. The learned Judge however made it clear that he would not be entitled to any monetary benefit retrospectively and actual benefit would be extended only from the date of filing of the writ petition. The petitioner accepted the said order, so was this State. The issue thus reached finality.
(2.)The State complied with the direction vide Memo dated September 13, 1996 as we find from page 75-77 of the petition. We find that the post of WorkCharged Electrician was converted into the post of Electrician with effect from February 18, 1977 when he was actually promoted to the post of Electrician. The petitioner continued to get the benefit. However, he did not get any incremental and/or CAS benefits since 1999. He subsequently retired from service with effect from October 31, 2003. The Department where he was working, sent his pension papers for appropriate concurrence from the Finance Department. He made representation for incremental and CAS benefit. His authority forwarded the same to the competent authority for consideration. Nothing materialised. He filed a petition before the Tribunal in 2003 just on the eve of his retirement inter alia, praying for the incremental and CAS benefit. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated August 24, 2010 dismissed the application inter alia holding the same as meritless. Hence, this petition before us.
(3.)Perusal of this said judgment and order of the Tribunal impugned in this petition reveals as follows :-
i) The petitioner s claim was based upon the result of the earlier litigation that gave him fixation at a scale of Rs.300-600/- with effect from February 18, 1977. He contended that in terms of Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) he was entitled to the benefit as he did not get any promotion for twenty-six years. Moreover, he was entitled to the incremental benefit with effect from 1999 as per ROPA 1998.

ii) The State took a stand before the Tribunal that his fixation appearing at page 75-77 was erroneous.

iii) According to State, the petitioner misled and practised fraud on Court as he was not entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated March 12, 1996. The petitioner was posted under the Department of Irrigation and his case should be guided by the departmental guideline and not the Memo pertaining to Agriculture Department.

iv) As per departmental guideline the minimum qualification for the post of Electrician under Irrigation Department was class-VIII pass having three years experience for installation and maintenance of medium overhead voltage line, domestic installation of medium and low voltage pumps having workmen s permit issued by the State. His pay was fixed subject to the approval of the higher authority which never came. The Executive Engineer erroneously gave him the scale.

v) He was given the scale of Electrician without any sanctioned post.

vi) He received all retiral benefit.

vii) He got the promotion in 1977 in the post of Electrician and got the subsequent higher scale in terms of the Court s order. Hence, he was not entitled to any CAS benefit.

viii) He was not entitled to the scale, which was granted to him in April 1989, and accordingly his corresponding enjoyment of higher scale was erroneous.

ix) With regard to incremental benefit, the Tribunal found from his Service Book that he got incremental benefit from 1999 to 2003 and he could not produce any evidence to the contrary.

Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Murari Mohan Das, learned senior counsel argued before us that the State, if aggrieved, could have filed appeal before the Division Bench as against the order dated May 13, 1991 and/or December 22, 1992. Having accepted the said order and complied with the same it was too late in the day to contend that such order was nullity in the eye of law and could not have been implemented. Mr. Das contended that the entire argument of the State that found favour before the Tribunal, was based upon a challenge thrown to the High Court order that attained finality long before. Hence, the State was not entitled to question the fitment made in terms of the Court s order, appearing at page 75-77 of the petition.