Monidipa Banerjee v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.
27.01.2026 Ct. No.18 SB
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 27771 of 2025 Monidipa Banerjee -vsThe State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sakti Pada Jana Ms. Sudipta Pramanik ... For the petitioner Mr. Abdus Salam ... For the State 1.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2.
The petitioner alleges that the 3% additional increment which she was receiving on account of her joining the upgraded school in terms of the approval of the concerned District Inspector of Schools was suddenly stopped on and from the month of January, 2020 without disclosing any reason.
3.
The petitioner relies upon the order passed by the Court on 15th January, 2024 in WPA 6217 of 2021 (Subir Kumar Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein the order of the Joint Secretary vide Memo No.292-SL/55-294/12 dated 22nd March, 2017 was set aside. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents to release the additional increment which the petitioner is entitled to receive.
4.
Learned advocate representing the State respondents relies on the communication made by the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Kolkata which mentions that in view of Memo No.292SL/55-294/12 dated 22nd March, 2017 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, additional increment in favour of the Headmaster/Headmistress of higher secondary schools upgraded after 27th February, 2009 is not admissible. 5.
As the petitioner was appointed as the Headmistress of the school on 23rd September, 2019 and the said school was upgraded to higher secondary school on 16th July, 2014, the petitioner would not be entitled to receive the 3% additional increment. 6.
On perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition and particularly the order dated 15th January, 2024 passed in the matter of Subir Kumar Ghosh (supra), it appears that the memo relied upon by the respondent authority in disallowing the 3% additional increment to the petitioner has been set aside by the Court. The authority cannot rely upon a memo which has been set aside by the Court for disallowing the benefit to the petitioner.
7.
In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the observation that it will be open for the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation highlighting her grievances supported
by the order passed by this Court from time to time seeking release of additional increment.
8.
In the event such a representation is made, the same shall be considered by the Commissioner of School Education, Government of West Bengal with regard to the payment of additional increment to the petitioner strictly in line with the law laid down by the Court in the matter of Subir Kumar Ghosh (supra) at the earliest but positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 9.
All consequential steps shall be taken by the aforesaid respondent in the event the petitioner's prayer is allowed.
10. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)