Adoption Of Pay Revision Scheme Doesn't Automatically Bind Employer To Its Retrospective Date : Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The appellant was appointed as a Junior Clerk by the Board of Directors of the Calcutta Corporation Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. (Respondent). She had been working since February 10, 1987. Her service was marred by a suspension order issued on June 3, 2004. She was dismissed from service after a prolonged disciplinary process. But after extensive litigation, she was reinstated in service by an order dated April 4, 2014. She resumed her duties on April 11, 2014.

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, directed the society to revise the pay scales of its employees as per the ROPA, 2009 scheme of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, effective from August 2014. However, this implementation was made subject to two key conditions:

• no arrear salary would be allowed
• employees had to provide an undertaking to complete all pending work.

The appellant declined to furnish the required undertaking. It was argued that she could not be held responsible for clearing backlogged work from a period before she was posted to a section. Therefore, her salary was not revised under ROPA, 2009. She contended that she was entitled to the benefits of ROPA, 2009 from its original effective date of January 1, 2006, and not from August 2014.

Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the denial of her pay revision benefits. The Single Judge directed the society to calculate and pay her dues as per ROPA, 2009, only from August 1, 2014, and not from 2006.

Aggrieved by the denial of arrears from the original 2006 date, the appellant filed the appeal.

It was submitted by the appellant that the Single Judge erred in law by failing to consider that neither the Registrar nor the Deputy Registrar possessed the authority to curtail the benefits that flow from the ROPA, 2009. It was further contended that the appellant was legally entitled to the full benefits of ROPA, 2009 from its notified date of January 1, 2006. There was no justification, legal or otherwise, for the Single Judge to allow these benefits only from the later date of August 1, 2014. The rights of the petitioner to an enhanced salary were given under ROPA, 2009 from its inception.

It was also argued by the appellant that the Single Judge failed to consider the provisions of Rule I and Rule II Clause 2(a) of ROPA, 2009, which pertain to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. By not applying these rules, the appellant was prevented from receiving the full benefits she was entitled to under the ROPA 2009.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the respondent society aligns its service conditions and pay structure with the actions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, but the Calcutta Corporation Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. is a distinct legal entity. It is not automatically bound by the decisions of the Municipal Corporation. Further it is well within its rights to take independent decisions concerning the service benefits and emoluments of its own employees.

It was further submitted that following the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's guidelines, the respondent authorities had agreed to grant the benefits of ROPA 2009 to its employees effective from August 2014. This decision does not violate the provisions of Rule 7 or Rule 11 of the ROPA Rules of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Further the administrative decision not to grant arrears of salary upon revision of pay cannot be faulted.

The respondents contended that the implementation of the pay revision was a managerial function. The society, upon considering the Deputy Registrar's report and its own financial stability, consciously chose the August 2014 effective date and the 'no arrears' condition. This decision was applied equally to all employees and, in the absence of any demonstrated arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, should not be interfered with by the Court in its writ jurisdiction.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the main issue was the appellant's claim for the benefits of ROPA, 2009 from its original effective date of January 1, 2006, rather than from August 2014 as decided by the respondent society.

It was affirmed by the court that the finding of the Single Judge regarding the undertaking was correct. It was noted that the appellant had already superannuated, therefore, the demand for an undertaking to clear arrear work had become irrelevant.

It was held by the court that Clause 7 of ROPA, 2009 applies exclusively to fresh recruits appointed on or after January 1, 2006. The appellant was appointed in 1986, and was an existing employee, therefore, this clause was not applicable to her case. It was further held by the court regarding Clause 11 (Payment of arrears) that while adopting ROPA, 2009 the respondent Cooperative Society was not bound to replicate its arrears payment schedule. It was observed that the society took a decision to implement the pay revision from August 2014 without paying arrears for prior periods, upon considering the Deputy Registrar's report and its own financial stability. This decision was applied uniformly to all its employees.

It was found by the court that there was no arbitrariness or violation, as the decision was based on relevant considerations and applied equally to all. With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal filed by the appellant employee was dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Keya Kar vs. The State of West Bengal & Others

Case No. : APO No. 49 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv., Ratikanta Pal, Adv., Afreen Begum, Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents : Santanu Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv., Amartya Pal, Adv