Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Biswa Kanya Debbarma on 10 August, 2021
Page - 1 of 9
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.125/2021,
WA No.127/2021 and WA No.139/2021
A) WA No.125/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura,
Khejur Bagan, P.O. Agartala, District - Tripura West.
2. Director of Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura, Government of Tripura.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Smt. Biswa Kanya Debbarma
wife of Sri Malin Debbarma, resident of Quarters Type III, Quarter No. 3
Jail Road, P.O. Dharmanagar, P.S. Dharmanagar, District - North Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
B) WA No.127/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura,
Khejur Bagan, P.O. Agartala, District - Tripura West.
2. Director of Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura, Government of Tripura.
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Sri Sanjib Debbarma
S/o. Lt. Budhu Debbarma, resident of Vill. Dina Nat Chowdhury Para,
P.O : Brindranagar, P.S. Jirania, Agartala, District - West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 9
C) WA No.139/2021 :
1. The State of Tripura
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura,
Khejur Bagan, P.O. Agartala, District - Tripura West.
2. Director of Handloom
Handicrafts and Sericulture, Indranagar, Agartala,
West Tripura, Government of Tripura
.............. Appellant(s).
Vs.
Smt. Sukla Debbarma,
W/O. Sri Dhirendra Debbarma, resident of Village - Roshiram Sipahi Para
P.O. Noabadi, P.S. Jirania, District - West Tripura.
.............. Respondent(s).
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattcharya, GA,
Mr. S Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. S Deb(Gupta), Advocate.
Date of hearing : 19th July, 2021.
Date of judgment : 10th August, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : No.
JUDGMENT
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned
Single Judge. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by
this common judgment.
Page - 3 of 9
[2] Appeals are filed by the State Government to challenge the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 25th July 2019, in WP(C)
No.520/2019 and connected petitions. The original petitioners had
approached the High Court seeking their placement in the pay scale of
Rs.240-440/-(pre-revised) with corresponding fitment in revised scales
from time to time from their initial appointments with all consequential
benefits. All the petitioners were engaged under the Director of Handloom
Handicrafts and Sericulture (DHHS), Government of Tripura, as Junior
Production Assistants or posts carrying different nomenclature but
carrying the same pay scales. The grievance of the petitioners was that
they were granted scales of pay under revised pay rules corresponding to
pre-revised scale of Rs.170-210/- instead of Rs.240-440/-.
[3] This litigation has long history and starts from an industrial
dispute registered as Labour Case No.1/1998 in case of Sri Chandan
alias Chandanmoy Dasgupta and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura before the
Industrial Tribunal, Agartala. The reference was made by the Government
of Tripura pursuant to an order passed by the Gauhati High Court on the
question whether the workmen who were Industrial Training Institute(ITI)
trained industrial workers of Government Production Unit, Industrial
Estate, Arundhutinagar, were entitled to draw their wages in the scale of
pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f 1st April, 1979. The case of the workmen in the
Page - 4 of 9
said labour dispute was that they all were holding ITI training certificates
from recognised institutions. Workmen with similar educational
qualifications and duties and responsibilities in other departments of the
Government were granted the scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f 1st April
1979 but the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal were granted scale of
pay of Rs.170-210/- and in the some cases, it was Rs.196-255/-. These
workmen had also pointed that some of the workmen in their own
department were also granted the pay scale of Rs.240-440/- and they were
discriminated in terms of grant of proper pay scale.
[4] The Labour Court disposed of the reference by award dated 14th
December 2000 holding that the concerned workmen were entitled to
draw their pay and allowances in the scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- w.e.f.
1st April 1979 on the principle of pay parity with workmen of other
departments.
[5] The Government of Tripura challenged the said award of the
Labour Court. The writ petition[W.P(C) No.546/2001] was dismissed by a
judgment dated 15th November, 2002. Special Leave Petition filed by the
State Government before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
Eventually, the Government also passed order, on 17th March 2005,
implementing the award of Industrial Tribunal and the industrial workers
Page - 5 of 9
who were parties in the said dispute were granted the scale of pay of
Rs.240-440/- w.e.f 1st April 1979.
[6] Several other workmen who were similarly situated but who
were not granted the benefit of higher pay scale as per the decision of the
Industrial Tribunal, filed separate petitions [WP(C) No.306/2005 and
connected petitions] before the High Court. All these petitions were
allowed and the Government was directed to grant the pay scale of
Rs.240-440/- from 1st April 1979 to these workmen also.
[7] The present petitioners have also raised the same dispute. Only
difference of note in their cases is that all of them were engaged after 1st
April 1979. It is not in dispute that on whichever date post 1st April 1979
when they were engaged, they were granted the scale of pay which was
existing as per the prevailing pay rules corresponding to the pre-revised
scale of Rs.170-210/-. The learned Single Judge did not find this a
significant difference and was of the view that these petitioners also must
get the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.240-440/-(pre-revised) as fitted in
the revised pay rules. Unfortunately, despite sufficient opportunities, the
Government had not filed a reply and the petition was heard without
affidavit-in-reply of the Government. However, during oral arguments,
this distinction was sought to be made on behalf of the Government which
Page - 6 of 9
according to the State would disentitle the petitioners from claiming parity
in line with the judgment in case of Sri Chandan alias Chandanmoy
Dasgupta(supra). The learned Single Judge dealt with this issue in the
impugned judgment as under :
"15. Having observed thus and on appreciation of the submission
made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view
that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits emanating from
the revised scale of pay of Rs.240-440/- in the grade of Industrial
Worker (Grade-IV), Skilled Worker(weaving), Junior Production
Assistant as re-designated or in the grade of the other re-designated
post of Senior Industrial Worker. The pay scale of Rs.240-440/- or
its revised scales as effected by the subsequent revision of pay from
and after 01.04.1979 along with their appropriate grade scale (vide
Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 ) or the
benefit under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) vide Rule 10 of
the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 and
Assured Career Progression (ACP) vide Rule 10 of the Tripura
State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 or their subsequent
revision or up-gradation of pay scale be entitled to the petitioners
or their predecessors irrespective of their date of appointment."
While, therefore, directing the respondents to give the benefit of
higher pay scale to the petitioners from the date of their engagements, in
view of long delay in approaching the Court, the arrears would be paid
only from the date 3 years prior to the filing the petitions.
Page - 7 of 9
[8] Learned Government Advocate, Mr. Debalaya Bhattachariya,
vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate
that there was a clear and significant difference in facts between the case
of the present petitioners and in case of Sri Chandan alias Chandanmoy
Dasgupta(supra). He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal's award
concerned workmen who were engaged prior to 1st April 1979. The
petitioners were engaged after 1st April 1979 when fresh pay rules were
introduced and in which two different categories of industrial workers
were envisaged.
[9] On the other hand, learned counsel Mrs. S Deb(Gupta)
submitted that the distinction sought to be drawn by the Government is
not material. The ratio of the decision in case of Sri Chandan alias
Chandanmoy Dasgupta(supra) would apply to the petitioners also. They
have been denied the benefit of higher pay scale. She submitted that in
number of other cases, such a situation had arisen. She gave example of a
judgment, dated 14th March 2017, passed by learned Single Judge in
WP(C) No.782/2016 and connected petitions, in case of Sri Sunil
Chandra Nama and Ors. Vs. State of Tripura, in this regard. She pointed
out that all the petitioners therein were engaged after 1 st April 1979 and
the learned Single Judge had directed that they shall get the benefit of pre-
revised scale of Rs.240-440/- with corresponding fitment in the revised
Page - 8 of 9
scales from the date of appointment. This judgement has been implanted
by the government.
[10] Facts are seriously not in dispute. In case of Sri Chandan alias
Chandanmoy Dasgupta (supra), the industrial workers had succeeded in
their claim for higher pay scale at par with similarly situated workers of
other departments and in some cases, their own department. After testing
the validity of the award right up to Supreme Court, the Government had
eventually passed order in May, 2005 implementing the award. On the
basis of this award as confirmed by the High Court and Supreme Court,
number of other workers who were entitled to the said same benefit had
approached the High Court from time to time and they were also granted
the benefit of higher pay scales.
Under the circumstances, we do not find that the learned Single
Judge has committed any error in giving similar treatment to these
petitioners also.
[11] The contention of the Government that in case of workers who
were engaged after 1st April 1979 the situation had materially changed,
appears to be raised for the first time in the present group of cases. Mrs.
Deb(Gupta) had pointed out that in case of Sri Sunil Chandra Nama and
others, there were as many as 18 petitioners involved, all were engaged
Page - 9 of 9
after 1st April, 1979. In their cases, the learned Single Judge, as noted, by
a judgment dated 14th March 2017 had allowed the benefit of higher pay
scale while limiting the arrears of salary on such basis to 3 years
preceding the date of filing of the petitions. Mrs. Deb(Gupta) had also
stated under instructions that this judgment was accepted by the
Government without challenge. That being the position, the present
petitioners, in any case, cannot be deprived of pay parity when under
identical situation the Government had accepted the directions for grant of
higher pay scale to similarly situated workers. As noted, the learned
Single Judge has restricted the benefit of arrears of salary to 3 years prior
to filing of the petitions, in view of long delay in approaching the Court,
while turning down the contention of the Government that the petitions
should be dismissed on ground of delay and laches by applying the
principle that question of correct pay fixation is a recurring cause.
[12] In the result, appeals are dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukehendu
