Mahadeb Jana v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

S/L.04.

May 28, 2025.

SUBRATA/KAUSHIK.

WPA No. 12150 of 2025 Mahadeb Jana Vs.

State of West Bengal and Others Mr. Prahlad Chandra Ghosh Mr. Subir Hazra ... for the petitioner.

Mr. Dipanjan Dutta Mr. Sayan Dutta ... for the State.

The petitioner has alleged inaction on the part of the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) in releasing certain arrears of salary due to him.

The petitioner has stated that he was appointed as an organizing teacher of the school on 2nd August, 2012. Subsequently, the school was granted recognition as a fourth-class junior high school with effect from the same date, i.e., 2nd August, 2012. The petitioner's appointment was approved vide memo dated 1st September, 2015, with retrospective effect from the date of his initial appointment.

Although the petitioner is currently drawing his regular salary and a portion of the arrears has been released in his favour, a substantial amount still remains unpaid. The petitioner, therefore,

prays for an appropriate direction upon the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) to release the balance amount of arrears due to him.

Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, learned advocate, appeared on behalf of the State and submitted that he would have no objection if the matter is referred to the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) for appropriate decision and necessary action.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. Taking note of the stand taken on behalf of the State and considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the concerned District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), ventilating his grievances regarding the non-release of arrears of salary. In the event such representation is submitted within a period of three weeks from the date of this order, the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. If the District Inspector of Schools (SE) finds merit in the petitioner's claim, appropriate

follow-up action shall be taken in accordance with law. If the petitioner's claim is found to be without substance, a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation and a copy of this order.

It is clarified that I have not gone into the merit of the claim raised by the petitioner in this writ petition.

All points are kept open to be decided by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE). There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)