IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

W.P.A. 3306 of 2023

Professor Nilotpal Ghosh And Another

Vs.

State of West Bengal And Others

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.

For the University : Mr. Prabir Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Suman Dey, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Rajen Dutta, Adv.

Ms. Suva Gayen, Adv.

Heard on : 27.08.2026

Judgment on : 17.09.2026

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The instant writ petition has been filed in assailment of a

reasoned order dated September 13, 2022 passed by the Senior

Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of

Agriculture.

2. By the impugned reasoned order, prayer of the writ petitioners

for grant of Non-Practicing allowances (NPA) was rejected. It was

2

contended in the impugned reasoned order that the Finance

Department, Government of West Bengal had opined that the facility

of NPA may not be extended to the teachers of Bidhan Chandra Krishi

Vidyalaya (BCKV). As a proposal to that effect was earlier rejected by

the Agriculture Department, Government of West Bengal, in respect of

extending the facility of NPA to the teachers of Uttar Banga Krishi

Vidyalaya (UBKV) or any other similarly circumstanced teachers.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the reasoned

order dated September 13, 2022 passed by the authorities are

arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

of India. It was submitted that it was specifically directed in deciding

the representation of the writ petitioners, the concerned authorities

would take into consideration the order passed on December 15, 2005

in WP 239(W) of 2023. However, the authorities passed the reasoned

order without adverting to such directions by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court. In that view of the facts, according to learned advocate for

the petitioners, the reasoned order dated September 13, 2022 is

manifestly illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Learned advocate for the writ petitioners further submitted that

the order dated December 15, 2005 in WP 239(W) of 2023 had already

decided that teachers employed in State aided Universities having

BVSc & AH degrees were entitled for NPA. The respondent authorities

could not have sit in appeal over the judgment and order passed by

3

the High Court. Such an order passed by the authorities, is absolutely

illegal. To such proposition, learned advocate for the writ petitioners

relied upon an unreported decision of a Coordinate Bench rendered in

2015 SCC OnLine Cal 2685 (Smt. Sabita Roy vs. State of West

Bengal and Others).

5. Learned advocate for the writ petitioners also submitted that

since the facility of NPA was extended to some veterinary teachers of

UBKV and appropriate orders in this regard were issued, the writ

petitioners being similarly placed, having similar qualifications, could

not have been denied the benefits of NPA on the anvil of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India.

6. Learned advocate for the writ petitioners further submitted that

while deciding on the matter, the concerned authorities were not

justified in relegating the grievances of the petitioner to the decision of

Pay Commission. Learned advocate for the petitioner also contended

that the impugned reasoned order is an outcome of bias based on the

propensity to justify its earlier decisions.

7. In support of his contentions, learned advocate for the writ

petitioners relied upon (1987) 4 SCC 431 (K.I. Shephard and Others

vs. Union of India and Others), 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7706 (Union

of India and Others vs. Anupam Biswas) .

8. Learned advocate for the writ petitioners also submitted that it is

wrong to say that the Government of West Bengal has adopted a policy

4

decision not to extend the benefit of NPA to the employees of BCKV

and UBKV inasmuch as at least two employees of BCKV were

extended such benefits of NPA following the ICAR norms. Writ

petitioner no. 1 joined BCKV and served between May 18, 1995 and

September 20, 2016 before joining WBUAFS on December 21, 2016

where he is already receiving NPA since November 2017. Writ

petitioner no. 2 is still serving in BCKV and is placed in similar

circumstances having the requisite qualification.

9. Learned advocate for respondent no. 3 & 4 submitted that the

Executive Council, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya had earlier

taken a decision to place the matter before the State of West Bengal

for sanction of funds for paying NPA to employees of University

possessing the requisite qualification i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary

Science & Animal Husbandry (BVSc & AH) at the rates sanctioned by

the State Government. He further submitted that the Council had

decided that NPA would be paid to the employees of University on

receipt of funds from the State Government.

10. Learned advocate for respondent no. 3 & 4 further submitted

that Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) scheme is fully financed by the

Government of India and are sanctioned only to Agricultural

Universities, ICAR institutes, related Government Departments and

NGOs working in the field of Agriculture. The KVKs are governed by

the rules and regulations by the ICAR from time to time. He also

5

submitted that regulations of ICAR approves grant of NPA to the

employees of KVKs having veterinary background. In consideration of

the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the University Administration

issued an order on August 27, 2010. However, according to learned

advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4, BCKV is State Government aided

University and the university administration cannot provide for any

allowance to its employees without approval from the State

Government. Learned advocate also submitted that the university

made various correspondences with the State Government however,

the university administration is unable to provide NPA to its

employees without a sanction from the State Government.

11. Learned advocate representing the State respondent, submitted

that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioners i.e. some

employees of BCKV is not maintainable in so far as there is no jural

relationship between the writ petitioners and the State of West Bengal.

Moreover, the two writ petitioners are employed in two separate

autonomous organizations holding different posts and one cannot

authorize the other to make statement on behalf of each other in a

single writ petition.

12. Learned advocate for the State respondent further submitted

that the proposal for grant of NPA to the teachers of BCKV and UBKV

having a Bachelor degree of veterinary (B. V. Sc.) & Animal Husbandry

(AH) was forwarded to the Finance Department. In reply, the Finance

6

Department had informed that since the teachers of West Bengal

University of Animal and Fishery Science were granted NPA under

order of Hon’ble Court, the same cannot be extended to the employees

of BCKV. Such decision of the Finance Department was duly

communicated to the Registrar of BCKV.

13. Learned advocate for the State respondent further contended

that the teachers working under BCKV are governed by Bidhan

Chandra Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1974 and the statutes and

ordinances therein. Whereas, the veterinary doctors attached with

Animal Resource Development Department, State of West Bengal as

well as Krishi Vigyan Kendra are governed under separate rules.

Therefore, the financial benefits sanctioned to the employees/staff of

such dispensations, cannot be extended to the employees of BCKV.

14. Learned advocate for the State respondent further argued that

the issues involved in WP 239(W) of 2003 were altogether different and

has no semblance with the issues involved in the present writ petition

and therefore, the petitioners cannot get any benefit out of the order

passed on December 15, 2005 in WP 239(W) of 2003. Moreover, in

terms of order passed in WPA 14532 of 2016, a hearin g was

conducted on August 29, 2022 and the prayer of the petitioners was

rejected by a reasoned order dated September 13, 2022.

15. Learned advocate for the State respondent also contended that

the UBKV never obtained any administrative consent from the State of

7

West Bengal with regard to extending the benefits of NPA to its

employee Sri Dilip Kumar Hazra. State of West Bengal has taken a

policy decision of not extending the benefits of NPA to the employees of

BCKV and UBKV which should not be interfered in a writ petition.

16. The petitioners were appointed as lecturers in the department of

Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture under BCKV by separate

appointment letters issued on April 7, 1995 in pursuance to an

advertisement issued by the University on August 12, 1994. The posts

were advertised for the department of Animal Production and

Management under the faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences of

BCKV. Subsequently, with the establishment of WBUAFS with the

faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, upon bifurcation of BCKV,

the advertised posts were retained by BCKV. According to the

advertisement dated August 12, 1994, the minimum educational

qualification for the post of Lecturer in Animal Production and

Management as prescribed in the advertisement was:

i. “A 1

st

or high 2

nd

class Master’s Degree in the relevant

subject or an equivalent Degree of a foreign university

following a good B.V.Sc & AH Degree recognized by BCKV

ii. Constantly good academic record with a Doctoral Degree in

the subject or equivalent published work of an equally high

standard.”

17. Petitioner no. 2 is still serving in BCKV as a professor. Petitioner

no. 2 served in BCKV since his appointment on May 18, 1995 till

8

September 20, 2016. Subsequently, petitioner no. 2 joined West

Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences (WBUAFS) after

resigning from BCKV. The Executive Council of BCKV in its 127

th

meeting held on August 16, 1994 had decided to recommend grant of

NPA to the teachers of BCKV holding a Degree in B. V. Sc. & AH.

Likewise, the Executive Council of West Bengal University of Animal

and Fishery Sciences (WBUAFS) also adopted a resolution on April 23,

2002 recommending grant of non -practicing allowance (NPA) to its

teachers. Many of the teachers of WBUAFS were initially appointed to

BCKV prior to formation of WBUAFS upon bifurcation of BCKV under

relevant Ordinance dated December 30, 1994 and WBUAFS Act, 1995.

18. In terms of a notification issued by Animal Resource

Department, Government of West Bengal bearing No. 2037/1(24) MC

dated July 1, 1994, Government of West Bengal sanctioned grant of

NPA to the veterinary graduates who were recognized with the West

Bengal Veterinary Council and holding posts for which one of the

various alternative essential qualifications for recruitment was a

degree in Veterinary Science.

19. Holding the requisite qualification, the writ petitioners submitted

their representation to the University for grant of NPA, following the

recommendations of the Executive Council, on July 29, 1997 followed

by several reminders. Upon refusal of the State Government to grant

NPA to the teachers of WBUAFS, some of the teachers approached the

9

High Court by way of a writ petition being WP 239 (W) of 2003. The

said writ petition was disposed of by an order passed on December 15,

2005 directing the State Government to extend the benefit of NPA to

the teachers of WBUAFS with effect from the date of resolution of the

Executive Council i.e. April 23, 2002. Consequently, the Department

of Animal Resource Development, State of West Bengal, issued orders

in this regard.

20. Not only that, Department of Animal Resource Development,

State of West Bengal also issued orders on January 25, 2010 for

revision of pay structure of the teachers of WBUAFS. Such order also

recommended that the teachers having veterinary degree would be

entitled for NPA at the rates stipulated in such order. The university

authorities also approached Department of Animal Resource

Development, State of West Bengal seeking grant o f NPA to its

teachers having B.V.Sc. & AH de gree. There were several

correspondences over the issue and the university responded to the

queries raised by the department. From the internal communications

in the department, obtained by the writ petitioners under Right to

Information Act, it is evident that the department is agreeable to

extend the benefits of NPA to the teachers having B. V. Sc. & AH

degree.

21. In May 2016 the petitioner received a communication from the

registrar, BCKV dated May 20, 2016 enclosing the observation of the

10

finance department which stated that the government has constituted

6

th pay commission for revision of pay of the employees of the State

Government. By such communication, the issue with regard to NPA

was relegated to the administrative department for taking up the same

with the pay commission. According to the petitioners, the salary and

allowances to the teachers of BCKV is made in terms of orders issued

by the concerned department of the State Government on the basis of

recommendations of UGC/ICAR. A pay commission const ituted for

revision of pay structure of the employees of the State Government is

not authorised to look into the salary and allowances of the teachers

of BCKV.

22. Apparently, there is no difference in the functioning of the

teachers of animal science in BCKV and WBUAFS. Teachers of both

the universities having B. V. Sc. & AH degree are professionally

qualified to practice as veterinary doctors. WBUAFS and BCKV are

listed amongst agricultural universities under Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (ICAR). Moreover, ICAR has also allowed NPA to

scientists holding veterinary qualifications (B. V. Sc. & AH/M.V. Sc.).

Apart from that, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India has also

directed payment of NPA for veterinary posts for which the minimum

qualification is B. V. Sc. & AH coupled with a registration with

veterinary Council of India.

11

23. It also transpires from the materials placed that being aggrieved

with the communication sent by the Registrar, BCKV on the basis of

the observations made by the Finance D epartment, government of

West Bengal, the petitioners moved a writ petition being WPA14532 of

2016 which was disposed of by an order passed on June 7, 2022

directing the authorities to take a decision on the entitlement of the

petitioners to receive NPA. In pursuance of such order, the hearing

was conducted by the authorities, which resulted in the impugned

reasoned order refusing the entitlement of the petitioners for NPA.

Such decision of the concerned department was based on the views of

Finance Department Government of West Bengal. According to the

petitioner, the impugned reasoned order is based on wrong facts. The

teachers of UBKV having B. V. Sc. & AH degree were being paid with

NPA. The benefit of NPA was also extended to the teachers of WBUAFS

with the concurrence of Finance Department, Government of West

Bengal.

24. By filing the instant writ application, the petitioners have prayed

for the following substantive reliefs, amongst others, namely,

A. “Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the

respondents to recall, cancel, rescind the impugned order

dated 13.9. 2022 passed by respondent No. 2.

B. Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the

respondents to sanction and pay non-practising allowance

(NPA) to the petitioner no. 2 w. e. f. 20. 04. 1995 (the date of

joining the respondent BCKV), with interest @ 12% p.a. and

12

continue paying such NPA so long as the petitioner no. 2 is in

employment of BC KV;

C. Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the

respondents to sanction and pay non-practising allowance to

the petitioner no. 1 from 18. 05. 1995 till 20. 09. 2016 the

period of his employment under the respondent BC KV, with

interest @ 12% p. a.

D. Writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari directing the

respondents to certify and transmit the records of the case

before this Hon’ble Court so that any decision/order, adverse

to the interest of the petitioners, including the order dated

13.09.2022 may be quashed and conscionable justice done to

the parties.”

25. As noted above, the writ petitioners were appointed in the

Department of animal sciences under BCKV to the post of lecturer in

animal sciences in the year 1995. The executive Council of the

University adopted a resolution on August 16, 1994, to grant NPA to

its teachers having veterinary background (B. V. Sc. & A. H). Upon

bifurcations of BCKV and establishment of WBUAFS, petitioner no. 1

joined West Bengal University of animal and fishery sciences.

26. The petitioners applied for grant of NPA which was duly

forwarded by the University to th e state government. The state

government refused to grant NPA to the teachers of WB UAFS.

Following such development, some of the teachers of WBUAFS

approached the honourable High Court by way of a writ petition being

W.P. 239 (W) of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by an

13

order passed on December 15, 2005 directing the state government to

extend the benefit of NPA to the teachers of WBUAFS.

27. Subsequently, the writ petitioners also filed representations for

grant of NPA as the writ petitioners also had veterinary background

and requisite qualification for their entitlement to NPA. The

representation was submitted to the University and in turn, the

University forwarded the same to the state government. After

prolonged correspondences and queries, the state government refused

the prayer of the writ petitioners for grant of NPA which was duly

communicated to the petitioners by the registrar of the University.

28. Upon such refusal by the state government, the writ petitioners

moved a writ petition being WPA 14532 of 2016 which was disposed of

by an order passed on June 7, 2022 which observed to the following:

“Considering the observations made by the coordinate bench

wide order dated 15

th

December, 2005 this court finds it fit to

direct the additional Secretary, government of West Bengal,

being the respondent no. 5 to take a decision on entitlement of

the petitioners to receive non-practising allowance. It appears

to this court that till date no formal decision has been taken on

the claim of the petitioners to receive nonpractising allowance.

Respondent no. 5 before taking such decision shall give an

opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners or their

representatives and the representative of the Bithan

Chandraa Krishi Viswavidyalaya and Bhaskar reasoned

decision within a period of 8 weeks from the date of

communication of this order. It is made clear that while taking

such decision on the claim of the petitioners for sanction of

14

non-practising allowance respondent no. 5 shall take into

consideration the decision of the coordinate bench as

contained in order dated 15 December 2005 and also relevant

facts that other similarly circumstance veterinary officers are

receiving non-practising allowance while working in the

universities under the state government”.

29. In pursuance of such order passed in WPA 14532 of 2016, the

hearing was conducted by the respondents on August 29, 2022 which

was followed by the impugned reasoned order. By the impugned

reasoned order, the claim of the writ petitioners for grant of NPA was

refused with the following observations-

“According to the valued view of Finance Department, GoWB,

the Non-practicing allowance (NPA) may not be extended to

the teachers of BCKV and earlier the Agriculture Department

rejected the proposal of Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya

(UBKV) regarding NPA by informing that the NPA cannot be

awarded to the teachers of UBKV or any such similarly

circumstanced teachers.

Now, after hearing and careful consideration of the facts of the

case, it is observed that the plea of the petitioners is non-

considerable, the NPA to the petitioners cannot be awarded

hence their claim is hereby rejected”.

30. From a bare perusal of the impugned reasoned order, it is

evident that the decision of the authorities is based on the views

expressed by the Finance Department. The other reason which has

been assigned in the impugned order is that earlier, similar prayers of

the teachers of UBKV were refused therefore, the petitioner’s prayer

15

could not be granted. The impugned reasoned order does not speak of

the consideration of the prayer of the petitioners in the light of the

order dated December 15, 2005 passed in W. P. 239 (W) of 2003, as

directed in the order passed on June 7, 2022 in WPA 14532 of 2016,

on the basis of which, the hearing was conducted.

31. Order dated December 15, 2005 passed in W. P. 239 (W) of 2003

read as follows:

“The petitioners are the teachers of the veterinary college.

Veterinary doctors are being extended benefit of non -

practicing allowance, as they are debarred from practicing. In

other medical colleges the teachers in M.B.B.S. course and

post graduate course are extended benefit of non-practicing

allowance, as they are serving the hospital as well as medical

colleges. In the instant case, the petitioners’ demand for non-

practicing allowance has already been recommended by

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, under which

university they are working. The state Government is,

however, declined to extend such benefit. As according to the

state, since it is not possible for them to extend monetary

benefit, which would cause extra financial burden of the state,

the teachers would be free to practice outside.

Ms. Gita Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the state

has drawn my attention to the memo dated June 11, 2002

addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, where the

government declined to extend such benefit. In the said memo

it was pointed out that the university had no authority to take

a resolution supporting the demand of the petitioners in

pursuance of the government order dated July 1, 1994.

According to the State Government, since the teachers were

veterinary teachers, they were granted UGC scale and since

16

they are not debarred from practising, non -practising

allowance could not be extended to them. It was clarified that

the said circular referred by the University was applied only

in case of veterinary doctors and not the teachers.

In my view, when veterinary doctors were extended such

benefit, there is no earthly reason why the teachers would be

debarred. The doctors were extended such benefit by the

State, so that their services could be utilised by the hospital

fully. Similarly if the teachers are no permitted to practice

outside, the entire education system would suffer and that’s a

concept for which the teachers in other medical colleges are

extended such benefit. In case, government takes of the policy

to discontinue such practice of granting non -practising

allowance to any of the stream, they would be free to deny the

same to the petitioners. So long it is not done, the veterinary

teachers, in my view, should be extended such allowance

being similarly circumstanced not only with the veterinary

doctors serving the hospitals along with the teachers but also

the teachers working in various other medical colleges under

the State.

The writ petition succeeds.

State of West Bengal must extend such benefit to the teachers

from the date of resolution taken by the University. State

would, be permitted to pay a rear allowance in phases along

with current salaries.”

32. As evident, the ratio laid down in the order dated December 15,

2005 sets up in favour of extending the benefit of non-accessing

allowance to the teachers on a consideration that such teachers were

not allowed to practice as veterinary doctors. Their services were fully

utilised by the University. The appointment letter of the petitioners,

17

placed before this court, clearly contains a condition that the

incumbent shall not accept any other employment either full-time or

part-time with or without remuneration except on prior permission of

the competent authority of the University. Such condition, can surely

be taken as a complete bar on the practice of the teacher having

veterinary background. Moreover, as noted above, the state

government was specifically directed by order passed on June 7, 2022

in WPA 14532 of 2016 to consider the prayer of the petitioners in line

with the order passed on December 15, 2005 in WP 239 (W) of 2003.

The impugned reasoned order is devoid of such consideration as

directed. There is nothing in such order to demonstrate that order

dated December 15, 2005 was taken into consideration at the time of

consideration of the representation of the petitioners. In Smt. Sabita

Roy (supra), it was held that any action in violation of an order of

Court is a nullity. In the instant case, the impugned reasoned order

dated September 13, 2022 seems to have been passed in clear

violation of the order passed by a coordinate bench on June 7, 2022 in

WPA 14532 of 2016.

33. Furthermore, the order dated December 15, 2005 was duly

complied by the state government by issuing necessary orders

granting non-practising allowance to the petitioner in WP 239 (W) of

2003. It was contended on behalf of the state that since such order

was passed by the state government in compliance of an order passed

18

by the High Court, the same benefit cannot be extended t o other

teachers. Such contention on behalf of the state government, in my

opinion, does not hold water. The state government chose not to assail

the order passed in WP 239 (W) of 2003. The ratio laid down in the

order dated December 15, 2005 passed in such writ petition is equally

applicable to all the similarly circumstanced teachers.

34. Not only that, the pay structure and allowances of the

agriculture universities are governed by the guidelines and orders

passed by ICAR from time to time. ICAR has also allowed non-

practising allowance to the scientists holding veterinary qualification.

The memo issued by the Indian Council of agricultural research,

Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, being F. No. 1 (1)/2009 – Per. IV dated

March 6, 2009 provided for non-practising allowances at the time of

revision of pay of scientists. The relevant provision of such memo

reads as follows:

“3. Non-practising allowance (NPA)

The ICAR scientists holding veterinary qualification

(B.V.Sc. /M.V.Sc.) would be paid non-practising allowance in

accordance with MOF, Dept. of Expr. OM no. 7 (19)/2008 – E.

III (A) dated 30.8.2006.”

35. Such guidelines issued by ICAR bolsters the claim of the

petitioner to their entitlement to non-practising allowance (NPA). At

least one of the teachers of Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya (UBKV)

was extended the benefit of non-practicing allowance, as evident from

19

order issued by the Registrar of the said University vide Ref.

1301/UBKV/Est./ (P.F.-894) dated December 21, 2016. It said,

“ORDER

The competent authority has been pleased to sanction the

benefit of Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) @ 25% of the revised

basic pay i.e. Band Pay plus Grade Pay to Dr. Dilip Kumar

Hajra, Assistant Professor (Animal Science), Department of

Agronomy w. e. f. 14/7/2014 in pursuance of notification no.

Admn./UBKV/1380 dt. 17.02.2011.

Sd/-

Registrar (Actg.)

Dt. 21/12/2016”

36. In the same line, pursuant to a query under Right to Information

Act, 2005, the Registrar (Actg.), WBUAFS, by its response dated March

30, 2015 informed to the following:

“It is to inform you that, as per G.O. No. 544-Uni/AD/O/U-

14/95 Dated 27

th

March, 2008 from ARD Department

(University Branch), Govt. of West Bengal, the benefits of NPA

is extended to the teachers of this University. Prof. S.S. Dana,

Professor, department of Fishery extension Education is a

teacher of this University who has a B. V. Sc. & A.H degree as

such it is in no way violation of existing G.O.”

37. On the ground of veterinary background and following ICAR

guidelines, the teachers of the respondent BCKV were also granted

Non-Practicing Allowance to the teachers of BCKV. It would be

20

apposite to set out the relevant extract of such orders, which are as

follows:

“(I)

DIRECTORATE OF EXTENSION EDUCATION

BIDHAN CHANDRA KRISHI VISWAVIDYALAYA

MOHANPUR, NADIA.

ORDER

Non-practising Allowance @ 25% on basic pay + dearness pay

is hereby sanctioned to Dr. Nirmal Kumar Tudu , Subject

Matter Specialist (Animal Science) KVK Nadia, as per ICAR

norms with effect from 31 August, 2006. Dr. Tudu is also

entitled to get allowances as per prescribed norms on NPA as

per rule. The procedure of calculation of NPA as envisaged in

the G.I.M.F., O.M.F. no. 105/1/2004-IC dated 8

th

October,

2004 is enclosed in the annexure-I for ready reference

This order is issued with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor.

No. DEE/496/1(4)/P-5 Dated21.09.07

Director of Extension Education

BCKV

(II)

BIDHAN CHANDRA KRISHI VISWAVIDYALAYA

Directorate of Extension Education

ORDER

No:. DEE/925/P-5 Date: 27.08.2010

In due cognizance of the prevailing practice to provide NPA as

per ICAR norm to the subject Matter Specialists of one of the

KVKs of this Viswavidyalaya having veterinary background,

the Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor has been pleased to sanction the

21

same NPA benefit to Dr. Ananta Kumar Das, SMS (Animal

Science) of Howrah KVK @ 25% on Basic Pay + Dearness

Pay.

This order retrospectively comes into force w.e.f. the

date of joining of Dr. Das at Howrah KVK and shall

remain valid until issuance of further order to this effect.

The expenditure concerning payment of NPA shall be

booked under the “Pay & Allowances” head of the KVK

and shall be reflected in the salaray bill of Dr. Das to be

drawn for the month of September, 2010.

This is for faour of kind compliance by all concerned.

Sd/-

Director of Extension Education”

38. Therefore, in view of the materials placed before this court and in

respectful agreement with the ratio laid down in the order dated

December 15, 2005, it is evident that the teachers with veterinary

background having degree in B. V. Sc. & A.H are entitled for Non-

practicing Allowance as per the norms laid down by ICAR. It is

apparent that such benefits were extended by different Agriculture

Universities in West Bengal including the respondents, from time to

time following the guidelines of ICAR. The writ petitioners are teachers

in the respondent university having veterinary background holding a

degree in B. V. Sc. & A.H. The terms and conditions of their

employment do not permit them to pursue any oth er work for gain

beyond their employment in the university. Their conditions of service

are akin to the teachers of other universities who have been extended

22

with the benefits of NPA. Moreover, as per the norms of ICAR, the

teachers holding B. V. Sc. & A.H have been held to be entitled to the

benefits of NPA. In such view of the facts, there appears no reason why

such benefits shall not be extended to the petitioners in view of Article

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

39. The respondents have come up with a case that the State has

adopted a policy decision not to extend the benefits of NPA to the

teachers of BCKV and that it will cause extra financial burden upon

the State. There appears not much force in such contention. The State

agreed to extend such benefit to a similarly circumstanced teacher

apparently on the ground that it was done under the order of Court.

However, the State never assailed such order of the Court and issued

relevant orders accepting the same. In such view of the matter, State

cannot be allowed now to turn around to discriminate against the

similarly circumstanced citizens. It seems to be a futile attempt to

stick to the earlier decision taken by the State Government.

40. As noted hereinabove, the impugned reasoned order is solely

based on the observation made by the Finance Department,

Government of West Bengal which relegated the concerned

department to take up the matter with the pay commission. The pay

and allowances to the employees of the respondent university are

governed by the norms laid down by the ICAR. The ICAR has approved

23

grant of Non-practicing Allowances to the veterinary teachers having a

degree in B. V. Sc. & A.H, which the writ petitioner do hold.

41. In K.I. Shephard (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that,

“16. We may now point out that the learned Single Judge of

the Kerala High Court had proposed a post -amalgamation

hearing to meet the situation but that has been vacated by the

Division Bench. For the reasons we have indicated, there is no

justification to think of a post-decisional hearing. On the other

hand the normal rule should apply. It was also contended on

behalf of the respondents that the excluded employees could

now represent and their cases could be examined. We do not

think that would meet the ends of justice. They have already

been thrown out of employment and having been deprived of

livelihood they must be facing serious difficulties. There is no

justification to throw them out of employment and then give

them an opportunity of representation when the requirement is

that they should have the opportunity referred to above as a

condition precedent to action. It is common experience that

once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to

uphold it and a representation may not really yield any

fruitful purpose.”

(Emphasis supplied)

42. Similarly, in the case of Anupam Biswas (supra), a Coordinate

Bench of this Court held to the following,

“19. Such conduct by the petitioners reminds one of an

observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

judgment reported at (1987) 4 SCC 431 : AIR 1988 SC 686

(K.I. Shephard v. Union of India), where it was noted that once

a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it.

Our common experience also indicates that once an authority

24

takes a stand, it often persists with that stance, sometimes

bypass the directions of the Tribunal or the Court by citing

various reasons.

20. In a decision, reported at (2004) 8 SCC 683: AIR 2005 SC

115 (E.T. Sunup v. CANSS Employees' Association), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court lamented that ‘It has become a

tendency with the Government officer to somehow or the other

circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to one

justification or other this shows complete lack of grace in

accepting the orders of the court. This tendency of

undermining the court's order cannot be countenanced. This

Court time and again has emphasized that in democracy the

role of the court cannot be subservient to the administrative

fiat. The executive and legislature has to work within

Constitutional frame work and the judiciary has been given a

role of watch dog to keep the legislature and executive within

check’.

21. A court or judicial institution refers an issue to the

competent authority not because it is unable to determine the

issue, but to avoid unwarranted encroachment into the

domain of administration. It should be noted that everyone

holding an office, especially a model employer, must conduct

themselves with high probity and candor and cannot exercise

their power arbitrarily or according to their own whims and

choice. It is bound to act in accordance with the settled

principle of law, reasonably and in conformity with

constitutional morality.”

43. Therefore, in view of the discussions made hereinbefore, I am of

the view that the writ petitioners are entitled for the benefits of Non-

practicing Allowance in accordance with the norms set forth by the

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and extended by

25

several Agricultural universities in West Bengal, with effect from the

respective date of their joining.

44. Accordingly, the impugned reasoned order dated September 13,

2022 is hereby set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to

sanction and pay Non-practicing Allowance (NPA) to writ petitioner no.

2 with effect from the date of his joining in the Bidhan Chandra Krishi

Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) i.e. April 4, 1995. Similarly, the respondents

are hereby directed to sanction and pay Non-practicing Allowance

(NPA) to writ petitioner no. 1 with effect from the date of his joining in

the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV) i.e. May 18, 1995

till September 20, 2016, when he left his employment in BCKV to join

WBUAFS. The arrears shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per

annum until payment in full. The order passed hence, shall be carried

out by the respondents within a period of 8 weeks from date.

45. With such observations and directions, the instant writ petition

being WPA 3306 of 2023 is disposed of. There will be no order as to

costs.

46. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all

formalities.

[MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.]