regarding higher scale

thank you for your kind cooperation. i could not understand the meaning of P.M

thank you for your kind cooperation. i could not understand the meaning of P.M

PM = Personal Message.
There are other things, we often use: NEWTOPIC, POSTREPLY.

first of all i wish to thank all of you. Mihirbabu ,I think you are right, but I personally along with my wife went to DSC at least 25 to 30 times. On repeated request to the dealing clerk the file was sent to law officer through assistant secretary. But the file was lost during the process- as show from the record. We then submitted 3 times fresh set of relevant papers-but all the efforts are in vain. i have inquired personally and through HM letter to know whether the higher scale can be obtained or not, but any response is yet to be found. It is also true that no initiatives has been taken on the part of school neither MC nor HM so that the incumbent get the scale
Now i want to share the details regarding her service:
1. Date of joining:20/03/2006
2. Date of MSc Part II exam:21/06/2006 to 4/8/2006
3. Date of submission of paper to DI: OCT, 2006
4. Sent to DSc and then to school education department
5. the file is lost since 31st AUG,2010 interstitial or not i don’t know
I want to know:
1. according the expenditure act,2005 there is a provision for getting higher scale for the Hons/PG scale having maintained proper way—14(3). Is the prior permission from is necessary for a candidate for getting higher scale who has already started a course?
2. The GEO order: 1595 SE(S) dated 27th Dec,2005 states a hons/ PG candidate can get higher scale only when he/she get prior permission from the competent authority. Now who is the competent authority- MC or DI is not mentioned. The previous order (before 2005 it is most probably MC)(Please give me the above order- a fresh copy)
3. As per the G.O 593 dated 27.11.2007 the competent authority is MC , so no question of taking permission arises for the hons/PG candidates arises who joined between Dec, 2005 and 27.11.2007. Is it not true?
4. Even i accept that DI permission is necessary then the court order:
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasenjit Paul vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 June, 2012
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1
25.06.2012
ss W.P. 6321(W) of 2011 Prasenjit Paul
Vs.
State of West Bengal & ors.
Mr. N. C. Bhattacharya
Ms. Susmita Biswas Chowdhury
… For the petitioner
The matter relates to sanctioning of higher scale of pay in favour of the writ petitioner who has improved his
qualification in M.Sc.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the claim of the writ
petitioner was refused on the ground of alleged “no prior permission granted by the District Inspector of
Schools (SE), Howrah” was obtained.
Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the writ petitioner all along upon due information has completed the M.Sc.
degree and thereafter he has served the concerned institution to which there was no objection from any of the
respondent authorities.
Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that the service of the petitioner was accepted by the concerned school 2
and the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), Howrah also allowed the writ petitioner to perform his
duties. He also submitted that the school and the students are also benefited for such improvement of
qualification of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents cannot take such plea which is not only irrelevant
but also not acceptable in the eye of law specially when there are judgements rendered by this Hon’ble Court
wherein it was decided that prior permission is required for improvement of such qualification.
Nobody appears for the respondents. In spite of direction for filing affidavit no affidavit was filed. At the time
of call no prayer for accommodation was made. Heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner. It appears that the writ petitioner has improved his qualification and also serving the school of
which the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), Howrah is aware. His service was accepted by the
respondent authorities. No proceeding was ever initiated for any misconduct or otherwise against the writ
petitioner. There are judgements by this Hon’ble Court to the effect that no prior permission is necessary for 3
improvement of qualification when the school authorities granted permission and allowed the concerned
teacher to have his qualification improved. There should not be any impediment to grant higher scale of pay
on the plea for no permission obtained.
In my view the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Howrah dated 31st January,
2011 is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is set aside. The concerned respondent including the
Prasenjit Paul vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 June, 2012
Indian Kanoon – http://indiankanoon.org/doc/30632929/
District Inspector of Schools (SE), Howrah is directed to release higher scale of pay in favour of the writ
petitioner since the date of such improvement. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There would be no order as to costs.
(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)
in this order court clearly sates that there is no need to taking higher scale for these candidates.
My question is who is the sanctioning authority of higher scale- DI or DSC?
6. IF It DI can DI sanction her scale if he satisfied by the following documents?
lastly 7. If i move legally merits of the case.

Dear Sri Das,
Let me express my opinion as follows:
“1.Date of joining:20/03/2006
2. Date of MSc Part II exam:21/06/2006 to 4/8/2006
3. Date of submission of paper to DI: OCT, 2006”
Remarks:
From the above information it is evident that she acquired M.Sc. degree before G.O. 593 dated 27.11.2007 taking into effect. Therefore, she is eligible to get incremental benefits, if not barred by any other provisions contained in a G.O. issued earlier.
“I want to know:
1. according the expenditure act,2005 there is a provision for getting higher scale for the Hons/PG scale having maintained proper way—14(3). Is the prior permission from is necessary for a candidate for getting higher scale who has already started a course?
2. The GEO order: 1595 SE(S) dated 27th Dec,2005 states a hons/ PG candidate can get higher scale only when he/she get prior permission from the competent authority. Now who is the competent authority- MC or DI is not mentioned. The previous order (before 2005 it is most probably MC)(Please give me the above order- a fresh copy)”
Remarks:
This G.O. 593 is not an isolated one rather, it is definitely connected with Section 14 (3) of the Control of Expenditure Act,2005. The first paragraph of the G.O. clearly justifies its applications in the manner of enhancement of qualification as clearly mentioned in Section 14(3) of the Act. In other words, the G.O. owes its origin to provision of the Section 14(3) of the Act.
I don’t know anything about G.O. 1595 SE(S) dated the 27th Dec.2005. So, no comments.
The term “Competent Authority” carries refers to different posts depending upon the subject. A person competent for recommendation of name of a candidate may not be competent for grant of some benefits. MC is the Competent Authority for recommendation of the name of a newly appointed teacher to DI for regularization of pay while DI is the Competent Authority for according necessary approval for pay. No doubt, for the purpose of grant of monetary benefit Director of School Education, Bikash Bhavan is the Competent Authority. MC is the Recommending Authority only. Govt. bears the responsibilities of pay and allowances of teachers and non-teaching staffs of an aided school. Diretor of School Education, DI, AI etc, are the Govt, Officers to deal with the matter of pay , pension etc. and, not the MC.
Your case was referred to the Law Officer probably to clear the confusion that whether prior permission from DI is required or not.
“3. As per the G.O 593 dated 27.11.2007 the competent authority is MC , so no question of taking permission arises for the hons/PG candidates arises who joined between Dec, 2005 and 27.11.2007. Is it not true?”
Remarks:
It’s not true as has already been justified above. Pls see the provision 3 of G.O. 593, which clearly necessitates requirement of prior permission from DI only when the incumbent wishes to claim monetary benefit. Here, DI (on behalf of DSE) is entrusted with the responsibility. Original Competent Authority is the DSE who, upon receipt of the claim related documents, verifies their authenticity, especially the Degree Certificate which is got verified from the concerned University before taking the decision.

“4. Even i accept that DI permission is necessary then the court order:
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasenjit Paul vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 June, 2012
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1
25.06.2012
ss W.P. 6321(W) of 2011 Prasenjit Paul
…………………………………….
Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the writ petitioner all along upon due information has completed the M.Sc.
degree and thereafter he has served the concerned institution to which there was no objection from any of the
respondent authorities.
……………………………………..
in this order court clearly sates that there is no need to taking higher scale for these candidates.
My question is who is the sanctioning authority of higher scale- DI or DSC?
6. IF It DI can DI sanction her scale if he satisfied by the following documents?”
Remarks:
It’s a wrong interpretation of the Court verdict. The actual fact, as appears from the verdict, is that Sri Prasenjit Pal INTIMATED THE MATTER OF PURSUANCE OF M.Sc. course to MC and DI but, did not seek prior permission from neither of them for completion of the course. The Court held that since, on receipt of intimation from Sri Pal, neither the MC nor DI made any objection and, allowed him to perform his duties in the school regularly, permission is presumed in this case. Otherwise, they could have made objection. This type of case is quite common. Pls see, if there is no role of DI for grant of permission for claim of benefits what is the validity of provision 3 of G.O. 593 dated 27.11.2007?
Finally, original sanctioning Authority is the Director of School Education, Bikash Bhavan, Salt Lake, as I explained earlier.
With regards.

The indication of G.O. 1595 SE(S) dated the 27th Dec.2005 is found at the end of the G.O. 593 dated 27.11.2007. Please tell me from where i inquire whether she eligible or not—from DI or DSC? The court verdict: There are judgements by this Hon’ble Court to the effect that no prior permission is necessary for 3 improvement of qualification when the school authorities granted permission and allowed the concerned teacher to have his qualification improved. There should not be any impediment to grant higher scale of pay on the plea for no permission obtained.—- Is this not applicable for this case? further it has been found some AT in the Burdwan district had got their higher scale on similar cases, where DI sanctioned the scale on behalf of the G.O. 1595 SE(S) dated the 27th Dec.2005 .DI assume that the prior permission from DI is equivalent to the leave sanctioned by the Board. My question is : whether these approval is legally correct? can the incumbent face overdrawn in future? Is it be quite easier to aquirre if there is any documents that reflects the incumbent applies for permission from DI?
Lastly suggest me how can I proceed so that she can get her higher scale?