Prior Option To Work As Para Teacher Shouldn't Act As Deterrent, Calcutta HC Permits To Work As Samprasarak For Better Service Benefits

Background Facts

In 2019, School Education Department of the Government of West Bengal issued a notification, wherein the petitioner chose to work as a para teacher instead of a Samprasarak/Samprasarika (which are roles in Madhyamik Shiksha Kendras, or MSKs).

The benefit under the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme was not available for a long time after petitioner made his choice to work as a para teacher. This benefit was introduced much later on April 1, 2024. The Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal issued a memorandum on August 29, 2024, where only those working as Samprasarak/ Samprasarika and agreeing to work until the age of 60 could access the benefits of EPF scheme. The petitioner observed that his original decision to become a para teacher was not beneficial because the EPF scheme was delayed and was applicable only to Samprasarak/Samprasarika.

Further the memorandum was not helpful for the petitioner because as a para teacher, the petitioner must retire at the age of 60 under the conditions in the memorandum. If the petitioner was treated as a Samprasarak/Samprasarika, he could work until the age of 65, which was more beneficial for him than retiring five years earlier as a para teacher. Therefore, the petitioner wanted to be reclassified as a Samprasarak/Samprasarika ignoring the earlier decision he made, to extend his service tenure and avoid the conditions tied to the EPF benefits.

Therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition claiming to be treated as Samprasarak/Samprasarika in MSK instead of para teacher by ignoring the option which petitioner had exercised to work as a para teacher.

It was contended by the petitioner that the EPF scheme was not introduced for a considerable period of time. And when it was introduced as per memorandum dated 29th August, 2024, the benefit of EPF Scheme was only extended from 1st April, 2024. It was further contended by the petitioner that such scheme was not beneficial to him. It was submitted by the petitioner that he wanted to be treated as Samprasarak/Samprasarika of MSK without giving effect to the option which petitioner had earlier exercised.

On the other hand it was contended by the respondent Paschim Banga Rajya Sishu Shiksha Mission (PBRSSM) that the petitioner's situation changed after the government issued a memorandum on August 29, 2024. Because of this, the petitioner now has to comply with the new rule, based on the choice they made earlier to work as a para teacher. It was further contended that since the benefit of EPF is extended to the Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas with effect from 1st April, 2024 it may not be beneficial to those Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas who have less than two years left if they are to retire at the age of 60 years along with para teachers, which was the case of the petitioner.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the memorandum dated 29th August, 2024 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of West Bengal extended the benefit of EPF to Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas of MSKs with effect from 1st April, 2024 which was not beneficial to the petitioner.

The case of Bidhan Chandra Naskar & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein the coordinate bench of the Calcutta High Court has passed orders directing the authorities not to treat Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas as para teachers on the basis of the options which they have exercised earlier.

It was observed by the court that the only difference in this case was the issuance of the government memorandum. And further that the writ petitions have been decided prior to issuance of memorandum dated 29th August, 2024 permitting those petitioners to be treated as Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas without giving credence to the options which they exercised. Therefore the Court extended the same benefits to the petitioner.

It was held by the court that mere issuance of memorandum dated 29th August, 2024 should not act as deterrence and the petitioner should be treated as Samprasarak/Samprasarika without giving relevance to the options which petitioner had exercised earlier.

It was directed by the court to the State authorities including PBRSSM authority to treat the petitioner as Samprasarak/Samprasarika and the option which petitioner had exercised should be treated as cancelled. It was further clarified by the court that the petitioner cannot claim the benefits of para teacher in the future.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case No. : W.P.A. 29070 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Gaus Ul Alam

Counsel for the Respondents : Sarwar Jahan, Mausumi Mitra, Tapati Sarkar, Pinaki Bhattacharya, Kaustav Bhattacharya