State Cannot Discriminate Between Veterinary Teachers for NPA Benefits: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has quashed a government order denying Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) to agricultural university teachers, ruling that the state cannot arbitrarily discriminate between similarly circumstanced professionals holding veterinary degrees. In a significant victory for academic staff, the Court held that the 'law of the land' established through judicial precedents must be applied uniformly to all eligible employees, rather than forcing each individual to litigate for their rightful dues.

A single-judge bench of Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi was hearing a writ petition filed by two professors who were denied NPA benefits despite possessing Bidhan Chandra Krishi (Viswavidyalaya) Act, 1974. recognized qualifications. The petitioners challenged a reasoned order passed by the Department of Agriculture which had rejected their claim based on an adverse opinion from the Finance Department.

Key Takeaways

Judicial Consistency Binding on State

Once a legal principle regarding service benefits is settled by the Court and accepted by the State, it must be extended to all similarly placed employees without discrimination.

ICAR Norms Overrule State Discretion

Pay structures and allowances for Agricultural Universities are governed by Bidhan Chandra Krishi (Viswavidyalaya) Act, 1974. guidelines, which explicitly provide for NPA to scientists with veterinary qualifications.

Administrative Bias Rebuked

The Court criticized the executive's tendency to stubbornly uphold previous erroneous decisions despite clear judicial directions to reconsider the matter in light of specific precedents.

Court Rejects State’s 'Financial Burden' Argument

The Court noted that the petitioners, as teachers in the Department of Animal Sciences, were professionally qualified veterinary doctors debarred from private practice by their service conditions. It observed that the State had already extended NPA benefits to teachers of the West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences (WBUAFS) following the judgment in W. P. 239 (W) of 2003. The Court found no merit in the State's contention that such benefits were 'case-specific' or caused an 'extra financial burden.'

The Court has the following directions:

"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... 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."

Failure to Comply with Judicial Mandate

The Court highlighted that a previous order in WPA 14532 of 2016 had specifically directed the authorities to consider the petitioners' claim in light of the ratio in W. P. 239 (W) of 2003. However, the impugned order ignored these directions. Referring to Smt. Sabita Roy vs. State of West Bengal and Others, the Court reiterated that any action in violation of a court order is a nullity.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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... 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."

Ratio

Teachers possessing a B.V.Sc. & A.H. degree, employed in State-aided Agricultural Universities under service conditions that prohibit private practice, are entitled to Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) as per ICAR norms. The State cannot deny these benefits to one set of teachers while granting them to others similarly situated, as such action violates the mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Background

The dispute originated when the petitioners, appointed as lecturers in 1995 at Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, sought NPA following a resolution by the University's Executive Council. While the university recommended the grant, the State Government repeatedly refused, citing policy decisions and the constitution of the 6th Pay Commission.

The petitioners argued that since NPA was being paid to veterinary doctors in the Animal Resource Development Department and to teachers at WBUAFS following W. P. 239 (W) of 2003, the denial to BCKV teachers was discriminatory. They also relied on Right To Information Act, 2005 to uncover internal communications showing the department was initially agreeable to the grant. Relying on the principles in K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others and Union of India and Others vs. Anupam Biswas regarding the tendency of authorities to bypass court orders, the High Court held the rejection to be legally unsustainable.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.A. 3306 of 2023
Case Title: Professor Nilotpal Ghosh And Another Vs. State of West Bengal And Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, Adv.; Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prabir Dasgupta, Adv.; Mr. Suman Dey, Adv. (University); Mr. Rajen Dutta, Adv.; Ms. Suva Gayen, Adv. (State)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2575