Calcutta HC restrained State from recovering money from student sent on paid study leave

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya has restrained the State of West Bengal in giving retrospective effect to an order pertaining to paid study leave, where the State had already paid the student and the State wanted to recover it.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, one Dr. Munmun Chatterjee had applied for two year study leave from 18th August, 2001 to 17th August, 2003 with full pay or not. Via an amendment in 2013, it was decided that paid study leave can be granted for not more than 12 months. 

Contentions

The petitioner represented by Advocate Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, contended, via producing various documents that she was granted a leave for two years. Further, the petitioner contends that 2013 amendment by which full pay would be given only for a period not exceeding 12 months can only be treated as prospective in nature.

Per Contra, the State, represented by Advocate Jahar Lal De referred to two Ordinance Nos. 26 and 27 which were in force at the relevant point of time and submits that while the first period of one year-study leave was to be given with full pay, the authorities thought it fit not to extend the same benefit in the 2nd period for one year (special study leave). The State also contended that the Registrar of the university cannot be considered as having any power or authority to grant study leave for two years to the petitioner with full pay.

Order

The Court rejected the state's contention and observed that "even if this Court were to expect that the Registrar cannot act on behalf of the University in matters of deciding whether the special study leave should be accompanied with full pay or not, the decision of the Governing Body remained undisturbed 2013 when the impugned decision was taken by the Joint Secretary that the petitioner would be granted study leave with pay only for one year."

The Court further noted that the benefit of study leave for two years with full pay was given to another similarly situated person after the 2013 amendment was brought in. "This would mean that the petitioner is being discriminated again since the amendment has been given totally different construction in relation to a similarly placed candidate which has not been extended to the petitioner." The Court noted that even though the Body has the power to interpret its own statutes, however, this borders on discrimination. 

Thus the Court concluded that the Joint Secretary of 2013 cannot be sustained. Since the petitioner has already received full pay the state has been restrained from taking any steps for recovery of any amount from the petitioner or otherwise or any other manner whatsoever. 

Dr. Munmun Chatterjee -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.