Calcutta High Court: In a case revolving around the entitlement of individuals to higher pay scales based on acquired qualifications and the constitutionality of relevant provisions of the West Bengal Schools Act, a 3-judges bench comprising of Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen* and Kausik Chanda, JJ., held that the enhancement of pay upon acquisition of higher qualification during the service career is not a matter of right but is dependent upon the relevant rules operating at the time of acquiring the higher qualification.
Factual Matrix
The instant matter arose from an order dated 22-08-2008, by the Division Bench of this Court in three connected matters. The Division Bench noted a conflict between two earlier decisions, Tarak Chandra Roy v. State of W.B., 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 36 and State of W.B. v. Sauvik Ghosh, 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 259, and formulated questions for consideration by a larger Bench regarding the entitlement to higher pay scales based on acquired educational qualifications. Subsequently, another Division Bench in Nirmalendu Maity v. State of W.B., 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 774, referred to a question regarding the entitlement of teachers appointed through the West Bengal School Service Commission in the ‘pass category’. Additional questions were raised regarding the interpretation of government orders and relevant rules concerning pay scale entitlements based on higher qualifications by a single bench. The Supreme Court requested expedited proceedings on the matter before the full Bench.
Moot Points
-
Whether individuals acquiring higher qualifications during their service can be compelled to remain on a lower pay scale perpetually?
-
Whether such compulsion violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
-
Whether the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Schools (Control and Expenditure) Act, 2005 (Act of 2005), are ultra vires the Constitution?
-
Whether the precedent set in Tarak Chandra Roy’s case (Supra) regarding the effect of post-graduate qualifications on pay scale entitlement is correct?
-
Whether teachers appointed through the West Bengal School Service Commission in the ‘pass category’ entitled to the benefit of post-graduate qualifications for higher pay scales?
-
Whether with the introduction of G.O. No.46-SE(B)/5B-1/2009 dated 27-02-2009 with retrospective effect from 1st January, 2006 and acceptance thereof by the petitioner prevented the petitioner from claiming a higher scale of pay on the basis of a Ph.D. degree awarded prior to 01-01-2006 but convocation whereof was held on 24-02-2006?
-
Whether Clause 12(5) of G.O. No.25-SE(B)/IM-102/98 dated 12-02-1999 implementing Relevant Order of Prior Acts, 1998 would be applicable in case of the petitioner in view of the omission of such a provision in G.O. No.46-SE(B)/5B-1/2009 dated 27-02-2009, with retrospective effect?
State’s Contentions
The Advocate General representing the State of West Bengal argued against automatic entitlement to higher pay scales upon acquiring higher qualifications, citing judicial precedents and the discretion of the state in granting incentives. The State emphasised that the state has the right to discontinue policies granting incentives and that individuals do not have a vested right to such incentives. It was further argued that the absence of rules granting higher pay scales based on qualifications does not impede individuals’ freedom to acquire higher qualifications.
The State asserted that the Stated has right to discontinue policy to grant incentives for obtaining higher qualifications at any time and argued that the continued grant of incentives cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It was contended that the grant of incentives at an earlier point in time does not create any vested right for individuals to continue receiving such incentives, therefore, there is no discrimination between individuals covered under previous policies and those covered under later policies. The State emphasised that there is no fundamental right permitting automatic grant of a higher pay scale upon obtaining a higher educational qualification.
Additionally, it was argued that the provisions of the Act of 2005 do not interfere with the freedom to acquire higher qualifications and are not ultra vires the Constitution. It was contended that laws can only be challenged on specific grounds, none of which were raised against the relevant provisions of the Act of 2005 in the writ petitions before the court. It was also argued that there is no prohibition in the Constitution preventing the enactment of relevant sections of the Act of 2005, and there is no dispute regarding the legislative competence to enact the Act. Sections 14 and 20 of the Act of 2005 permits the regulation and control of expenditure within the domain of the state legislature and/or state policy. The State emphasised on the evolution of relevant laws and regulations governing the entitlement to higher pay scales based on qualifications and asserted that individuals cannot claim the same benefits under subsequent rules and that no vested right is created in favor of individuals under any previous policy of the State.
Statutory History
The Court extensively reviewed the ROPA rules from 1981 to 2009 and noted that the government had altered and amended the eligibility criteria for teachers to claim a higher scale of pay overtime. The requirement for higher qualifications in relevant subjects was deemed rational, as it benefits both the institution and the students. Under ROPA 1981, the option for a higher scale of pay was applicable only once in a teacher’s service career, and the benefit of increment was limited to three years beyond the maximum of the scale. ROPA 1990 introduced the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), allowing higher pay for teachers with improved qualifications in relevant subjects, effective from 01-01-1986, or the date of qualification improvement, whichever is later. Subsequent amendments and government orders clarified and extended financial benefits to teachers for acquiring higher qualifications. The introduction of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997, aimed to regulate teacher recruitment, ensuring transparency and uniformity. The Act of 2005, was enacted to streamline expenditure in schools and madrassas and all expenditures sanctioned under this Act would be only legally enforceable if there is any breach.
Court’s Analysis
Interpretation of Statute
The Court provided an exhaustive analysis of the legislative framework, including statutory provisions, government orders, and circulars. The Court emphasised the importance of consistency and predictability in legislation and governance, noting that changes to rules and regulations should not unduly curtail or withdraw benefits previously granted to individuals. The Court stated that government orders and statutes should generally be interpreted prospectively, unless expressly stated otherwise. The Court stated that the conflicting government orders and statutes should be harmonised where possible, but in cases of irreconcilable conflict, the order or statute with the later date of issuance or higher legal authority should prevail.
Article 309 v. Statute
The Court highlighted the statutory nature of rules made by the Governor under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the potential for challenge on constitutional grounds, particularly regarding retrospective application. The Court emphasised on the principle that rules framed under Article 309 cannot amend the provisions of the Act, and any amendment must be prospective in nature. The Court referred to Tejshree Ghag v. Prakash Parashuram Patil, (2007) 6 SCC 220 and Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 11 SCC 522, to support its interpretation of retrospective legislation and the presumption against it and cited Francis Bennion’s Statutory Interpretation to underscore the principle against retrospectivity and the importance of fairness in legal rules.
The Court concluded that the Act of 2005 does not have retrospective effect, and any executive order issued thereafter cannot override the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that the teachers appointed before the enactment of the Act of 2005, are entitled to higher scales of pay based on qualifications acquired prior to the enactment, provided they meet the eligibility criteria outlined in the relevant government orders and statutes.
Objective of Circular
The Court observed that the objective of the circulars was to incentivize in-service employees to acquire professional qualifications, thereby improving the standard of education. It was stated that the teachers with higher qualifications contribute to the knowledge bank of schools and can impart better education, benefiting both the institution and the students. The Court noted that while acquisition of higher qualifications does not guarantee a higher scale of pay, teachers can legitimately expect incentives for further education.
Conflicting Division Bench decisions
The Court examined conflicting Division Bench decisions in Tarak Chandra Roy (Supra) and Sauvik Ghosh (Supra), regarding the entitlement of teachers to a higher scale of pay based on their qualifications and observed that the State has the authority to classify teachers based on qualifications for pay fixation, but such classification must have a reasonable nexus with the duties and responsibilities of the position. The Court emphasised that teachers cannot claim a higher scale of pay as a fundamental or legally enforceable right but acknowledged the importance of incentives for career growth. The Court concluded that while teachers cannot claim parity with those recruited with higher qualifications, a reasonable approach from the State is necessary to address stagnation and lack of promotion opportunities.
The Court stated that the State must review its policy on career advancement schemes for teachers facing stagnation and acquiring higher qualifications during employment. While the acquisition of higher qualifications does not create a vested legal right to claim a higher scale of pay, the State should consider providing incentives to such teachers. The Court clarified that the retrospective operation of statutes and government orders must be carefully considered, and any changes should not unfairly deny benefits to employees.
Enhancement of pay upon acquisition of higher qualifications during the service career
The Court held that the enhancement of pay upon acquisition of higher qualifications during the service career is contingent upon the relevant rules in force at the time of acquiring the higher qualification and cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of such rules. The Court further held that the claim for a higher scale of pay based on the newly acquired degree must be decided based on the rules existing at the time of acquiring the qualification as any other interpretation would facilitate a backdoor entry.
The Court stated that the teachers acquiring higher qualifications can compete in the recruitment process for a post commensurate with their qualifications, and therefore, the issue of stagnation does not arise. However, the Court encouraged the Stated to formulate a scheme for incentives to teachers who enhance their qualifications during their service tenure, as this would encourage better performance and act as a buffer against stagnation.
Sections 14 and 20 of the West Bengal Schools (Control and Expenditure) Act, 2005
The Court observed that the vires of Sections 14 and 20 of the Act of 2005, are not under challenge as the issue raised was whether persons who had previously received benefits under court orders or by the government could be denied similar benefits to similarly placed individuals and without pleading to the effect that the rules are ultra vires, this issue cannot be decided.
Appointment in the ‘pass category’
The Court held that the case of Tarak Chandra Roy (Supra) has been correctly decided and should be read along with Government Orders dated 03-06-2002, and 03-03-2004. The reference made by the Division in Nirmaledu Maity (Supra) is answered in the negative, i.e., teacher who has been appointed through West Bengal School Service Commission in ‘pass category’ cannot get the benefit of his post graduate qualification for the purpose of getting post graduate scale of pay.
Single-judge bench’s reference
The Court held that with regards to conflict in the views expressed in Anupam Samanta v. State of W.B., 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 12252 and State of W.B. v. Chandra Bhusan Dwivedi, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9243, the date of convocation is deemed irrelevant for the purpose of entitlement to a higher scale of pay and the relevant date is the declaration and/or publication of results, and teachers should be entitled to draw pay of the post-graduate teacher category in terms of Government order dated 26-12-2005. The Court further stated that if a teacher has partially completed higher studies before entering service, they would fall under the purview of specific government orders, and the requirement for permission from concerned authorities would not apply.
The Court held that a subsequent government order cannot operate retrospectively to invalidate benefits granted under previous rules. The Court stated that the Government order dated 27-02-2009 cannot operate retrospectively to invalidate benefits available under the Rule/Rules in force at that time., however, with regard to the benefits to be enjoyed under the Government order dated 12-02-1999 vis-a-vis the Government Order dated 27-02-2009, the ratio in State of W.B. v. Mala Sanyal, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 5437, shall be followed.
Court’s Decision
The Court answered the reference in accordance with the above rulings, emphasising on the importance of adhering to relevant rules and government orders in determining pay enhancement for teachers based on their qualifications acquired during their service careers.
[Utpal Kanti Karan v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1274, order dated 07-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Soumen Sen
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Mr. Sridhar Chandra Bagari, Adv. In (FMA.2688 of 2007)
For the Appellant: Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Adv., In (FMA 557 of 2007), Mr. Gora Chand Samanta, Adv.
For the Appellant: Mr. N.I Khan, Adv., In (MAT 421 of 2022) Mr. Amlan Kumar Mukherjee, Adv.
For the respondents: Mr. Subir Sanyal, Adv., in (FMA 125 of 2022) Mr. Sakti Pada Jana, Adv., in (FMA143 of 2022) Mr. Dwarik Nath Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Kamal Mishra, Adv., Mr. Subhajyoti Das, Adv.
For the Appellant: Mr. Anirban Ray, Adv., in (FMA 125 of 2022) Mr. Himadri Sekhar Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Sucharita Paul, Adv.
For the Appellant: Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, Adv., In (FMA 143 of 2022) Mr. Dipankar Dasgupta, Adv.
For the petitioner: Mr. Samaresh Chandra Dhara, Adv. In (WPA 4698 of 2016)
For the petitioner: Mr. Mahananda Roy, Adv. In (WPA 15736 of 2013)
For the petitioner: Ms. Lina Majumder, Adv. In (WPA 29710 of 2013)
For the Petitioner: Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Adv., In (WPA 4698 of 2016) Mr. Samaresh Chandra Dhara, Adv.
For the respondent no. 1: Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, Adv., In (FMA 387 of 2020) Mr. Surendra Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For the respondent no. 5: Mr. Tarun Kumar Das, Adv. In (MAT 421 of 2022)
For the petitioner: Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Adv., In (WPA 4698 of 2016) Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Samaresh Chandra Dhara, Adv.
For the State: Mr. S.N. Mookerji, Ld. A.G, Adv., Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, Adv., Mr. Tapas Kumar Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Supriya Chattopadhyay, Adv., Ms. Iti Dutta, Adv., Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Adv., Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Biswajit De, Adv., Mr. Rajlakshmi Ghatak, Adv., Mr. Debdooti Dutta, Adv., Ms. Saheli Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Kakali Smajpaty, Adv., Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv., Mr. Dipankar Dasgupta, Adv., Ms. Sucharita Paul, Adv., Ms. Lina Majumdar, Adv., Ms. Pampa Das, Adv., Mr. Somnath Naskar, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
