The Headmaster, Mahishadal Raj High School v. Dr. Kanika Rani Sahoo And ORS.
02.08.2023 SL No.41 Court No.8 (gc) FMA 132 of 2022 CAN 1 of 2022 CAN 3 of 2022 The Headmaster, Mahishadal Raj High School Vs.
Dr. Kanika Rani Sahoo & Ors.
1. The appellant is not represented, nor any accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellant.
2. The matter was adjourned earlier in order to enable the appellant to obtain necessary instruction. It appears that the Coordinate Bench on 8th June, 2022 passed an order directing the Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal to furnish a detailed report in order to obtain a clear and unambiguous view of the events being perpetrated at the level school authorities after examining the documents and affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The Principal Secretary has filed a report. The appellant has filed an exception to the said report. In order to appreciate the objection raised in the exception against the report, it is necessary
to tabulate the findings of the Principal Secretary as it appears from its report.
After examination of the claim of the writ petitioner, relevant documents produced by the Headmaster and the pleadings, the Principal Secretary arrived at the following findings:- Issues Findings Fixing up her pay scale according ROPA ROPA'
(Vide Memo No.437-SE (P&B) dated 13.12.2019) is applicable to those employees aided/sponsored institutions holding substantive/ officiating posts on 01.01.2016.
appellant Headmaster failed to produce any cogent documents support alleged disputed testimonial and service records and court cases which at all prohibit him to take steps for pay fixation petitioner/Respondent No.1.
As such petitioner/ Respondent may be entitled to get the pay fixation benefit under ROPA' 19 as per Memo No.437-SE(P&B) dated 13.12.2019 (ROPA' 19).
Grant of 20 years benefit with effect from July 1, 2020.
As per para 11(2) of the ROPA' 19, employees will get benefit only 1(one) increment in the same Level of Pay upon completion of every 10 years continuous satisfactory service counted from date first appointment to the same post subject to maximum of 2 such increments during the whole career with
approval of the competent authority, i.e. District Inspect Schools (SE), Purba Medinipur.
So, petitioner/ Respondent No.1, subject fulfillment condition mentioned therein, may be entitled the benefit of 20 years.
Grant yearly increment from July 1, 2020 As per para 10 of the ROPA'
19, respect all employees, there shall be uniform date annual increment, as existing and such date annual increment shall be the 1st day of July every year.
So, after fixation of pay under ROPA' 19, the petitioner may be allowed annual increment as per existing norms.
Refund Rs.9,480/- deducted from her salary for the Month June, 2012.
It appears from A/O (vide paragraphs 13, and annexure O-16 of the A/O) filed by petitioner/Respondent in FMA 132 of 2022 that she has refunded said amount as per direction of the Hon'ble High Court Order dated 21.02.2014 passed in MAT 1311 of 2012. The school authority although filed Review petition No.130 of 2014 against the Order dated 21.02.2014 passed in MAT 1311 of 2012. The review petition has not yet been disposed of. So, her claim for recovery Rs.9,480/- may not be permissible as per Law.
Preparation & Update Service Book petitioner/Respondent No.1 applied for Maternity leave to the School authority.
authority sanctioned maternity leave in her favour recording the Date of Birth of her child as 19-02-2000 but during her application for Child Care Leave (CCL) in the year 2016 she produced a birth certificate wherein Date of
Birth of her child namely Upasana Sahoo was recorded 17-06-2002.
denied sanction CCL.
Against denial, petitioner/Respondent No.1, petitioner moved WP 30004(W) of 2016.
DIS (SE), Purba Medinipur in compliance with the order dated 22.12.2016 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP 30004(W) of 2016, directed the school authority for sanctioning CCL favour petitioner/Respondent No.1.
The issue, related to sanction of Child Care Leave of the petitioner/Respondent is a settled one as per order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 22.12.2016 passed in W.P.
30004(W) 2016.
Hence, there is no impediment in preparation of service Book petitioner/Respondent by the school authority.
It will not be out of place to mention here that the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 21.02.2014 passed in MAT 1311 of 2012 was inter-alia pleased to direct the District Inspector Schools and School authority to prepare service book petitioner/Respondent No.1.
3. In fact, the Coordinate Bench in its order dated 8th June, 2022 had directed the Principal Secretary consider pleadings in the appeal as well as the writ petition in deciding the matter.
4. We do not find any affidavit filed on behalf Headmaster taking exception to the said report or confronting any of the findings made by the Principal Secretary in his report. The report has clearly suggested the entitlement of the writ petitioner.
5. Under such circumstances, we upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. We dismissed the appeal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected applications stand dismissed.
8. The appellant shall comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge within four weeks from date.
9. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
10.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)