Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ruby Bhattacharyya Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Ruby Bhattacharyya vs State of West Bengal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 20, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1153876

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ruby Bhattacharyya

Respondent

State of West Bengal and ors.

Excerpt

.....as also in paragraph 11, i do not incline to proceed any further against her for non-supplying instruction. this writ application is directed against the order passed by the director of school education, west bengal being annexure p-13 to the writ petition. the only grievance of the writ petitioner is that no notional benefit granted to the petitioner although similarly situated school teachers of the same school are obtained such benefit and this action of the respondent authorities is violative of equality clause contained in article 14 of the constitution of india. in reply, mr.joytosh majumdar draws the attention of the ordering portion of annexure p-13 and disputed the contention of mr.anjan bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioner. mr.majumdar contended that the order does not spell out the respondent authorities to come to a decision to give notional benefit to the writ petitioner but what they have contended is that from which date such notional benefit will be given shall be considered after the petitioner files a representation and also considering as to whether the petitioner is similarly situated with those other teachers who have already been granted the notional benefit. mr.majumdar further submitted that the respondent authorities are ready and willing to grant notional benefit if she is found similarly situated or standing on the same footing with the other teachers of the same school, then there will be nothing to stand on the way in granting notional benefit to the writ petitioner. having considered the rival submission of the parties and very particularly what has been submitted by mr.majumdar i do not think that nothing is left for decision of this court. accordingly this writ application stands disposed of. (ashim kumar roy, j.) anc.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present : The Hon’ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy June 20, 2014 WP210of 2012 Ruby Bhattacharyya versus State of West Bengal & ORS.Mr.Anjan Bhattacharya, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Joytosh Majumdar, Additional Government Pleader with Mr.Sadhan Halder, Advocate Mr.Shamim Ul Bari, Advocate for the State The Court :- Heard Mr.Anjan Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Joytosh Majumdar, Additional Government Pleader along with Mr.Sadhan Halder, learned Advocate and Mr.Shamim Ul Bari, learned Advocate for the State respondents.

The District Inspector of Schools, Kolkata is personally present in Court.

Affidavit filed by her be taken on record.

Having regard to the averments made in paragraph 10 in this affidavit as also in paragraph 11, I do not incline to proceed any further against her for non-supplying instruction.

This writ application is directed against the order passed by the Director of School Education, West Bengal being Annexure P-13 to the writ petition.

The only grievance of the writ petitioner is that no notional benefit granted to the petitioner although similarly situated school teachers of the same school are obtained such benefit and this action of the respondent authorities is violative of equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In reply, Mr.Joytosh Majumdar draws the attention of the ordering portion of Annexure P-13 and disputed the contention of Mr.Anjan Bhattacharya, learned Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Majumdar contended that the order does not spell out the respondent authorities to come to a decision to give notional benefit to the writ petitioner but what they have contended is that from which date such notional benefit will be given shall be considered after the petitioner files a representation and also considering as to whether the petitioner is similarly situated with those other teachers who have already been granted the notional benefit.

Mr.Majumdar further submitted that the respondent authorities are ready and willing to grant notional benefit if she is found similarly situated or standing on the same footing with the other teachers of the same school, then there will be nothing to stand on the way in granting notional benefit to the writ petitioner.

Having considered the rival submission of the parties and very particularly what has been submitted by Mr.Majumdar I do not think that nothing is left for decision of this Court.

Accordingly this writ application stands disposed of.

(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) ANC.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial