Sri Bapi Sarkar and 3 Ors v. The State of Tripura and 2 Ors

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_

WP(C) No.149 of 2023

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate. Mr. S. Dey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

_O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 17/03/2023

Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: i. Issue notice upon the respondents. ii. Call for the records. iii. Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall not be given the benefit of one increment as per Rule-13(1)(ii) and the petitioner No.4 shall not be given one increment under Rule-13(1)(v) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 including all arrears of financial benefits. AND iv. Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the memorandum dated 6th July, 2011 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura shall not be set aside and quashed. AND v. Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 shall not be granted all financial benefits as per the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2021 passed in WP(C) No.703/2019 by this Hon'ble High Court as upheld by this Ld. Division Bench in W.A.No.207/2021 including all arrears of financial benefit. AND vi. Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the petitioner No.4 shall not be granted all benefits in terms of the earlier judgment and order dated 19.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No.602/2021 as upheld by the Ld. Division Bench in W.A. No.309/2021 and other batch matters.

AND vii. And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute."

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 urged for one increment in favour of them for the B.Ed. training undergone by the petitioners prior to entry into the service as per Rule-13(1) (ii) and in favour of the petitioner No.4 under Rule-13(1) (v) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. The petitioners further sought a writ of certiorari for setting aside the memorandum dated 6th July, 2011 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura whereby decision has been taken to provide lumsump benefit as training incentive in lieu of increment as provided under Rule-13(1)(v) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009.

The petitioners further raised demand regarding violation of Rule-13(1)(ii) and 13(1)(v) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. The petitioner No.1 was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher in Education Subject under the respondent department vide memorandum dated

17.07.2007. Thereafter, on completion of 5 years of service he has been extended with regular pay scale vide memorandum dated 31.08.2012 w.e.f.

01.08.2012. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were appointed as post Graduate Teachers in Political Science and Physics Subject under the respondent department and after completion of 5 years of service they were extended with regular pay scale.

The respondent No.4 was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher in English Subject and after completion of 5 years of service he was also extended with regular pay scale. The Finance Department, Government of Tripura issued a memorandum on 6th July, 2011 whereby, it was provided that the fixed pay employees do not come under purview of revision of pay rules and therefore the teachers who completed the B.Ed. prior to entry into service are entitled to lumsump benefit and not the increment as provided under the rules. The petitioners were deprived of the benefit of one increment as per Rule-13(1)

(ii) and Rule-13(1) (v) of the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009.

Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein before this Court for redress.

It reveals from the fact of the case that the case of the petitioners is covered by a decision of this Court passed in W.A. No.207 of 2021 and W.A.No.309 of 2022 and the respondents need to consider their case. Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has submitted before this Court that the petitioners have not approached before the respondent-authorities and the respondents do not know with regard to their grievance and reliefs. It has been further submitted that once the petitioners approach before the respondents, they would definitely consider the same in accordance with law.

In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider case of the petitioners once the petitioners submit their representation along with all relevant documents before the respondent-authority within a period of three months thereafter.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand closed.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) A. Ghosh