Tripura High Court
Mr. A. Bhowmik vs Mr. D. Bhattacharjee on 23 August, 2021
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.459 OF 2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Present:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhowmik, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.
23.08.2021
Order
Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., assisted
by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners by way of filing the present writ petition
have claimed one increment since they obtained B.Ed degree in
the year 2007, that is, prior to the cut-off date i.e. 01.01.2009
fixed by the State-respondents.
Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that since the petitioners had obtained B.Ed degree
prior to the said cut-off date i.e.01.01.2009, they are entitled to
one increment but not incentive.
A coordinate Bench of this Court has already settled this
issue. While dealing with the similar issue, the Bench (Mr. Justice
A.Kureshi, C.J.) in his judgment dated 19th March 2021 rendered
in WP(C) No.703 of 2019, titled as Sri Kamanashis Das & ors. Vs.
The State of Tripura and ors., had observed thus:-
"[14] Sum total of this discussion is that in my view, the provision
for grant of advance increment by way of training incentive to those
teachers who entered the service with higher qualifications would continue
to operate even after 1st January 2009, however, those who obtained such
training after 1st January, 2009 will only be entitled to lump sum payment.
The case of the petitioners would fall under clause (ii) since they had
obtained B.Ed degrees long before 1st January, 2009. They possessed such
degrees when they joined the service. They were brought over under ROP
2009 upon completion of 5 years period from respective dates of initial
engagement. They would, therefore, be entitled to the benefit under Rule
13(1)(ii) of ROP 2009, notwithstanding the fact that the event of being
brought over Rule 13(1)(ii) of ROP 2009 happened after 1st January, 2009 in
each of their cases.
[15] Two issues need to be sorted out before final directions can be
issued. Firstly, in facts of the case, the principle of estoppel cannot be
applied since it is stated by the petitioner that only 2 out of the 5 petitioners
have received even the lump sum payment and in their cases also the same
was granted unilaterally by the Government. Second is the question of delay
and laches. It is true that these petitions were filed long after the rights of
the petitioners to claim increment arose. However, being a matter of correct
pay fixation, would have recurring effect. Subject to limiting their past
rights, their prayer for grant of advance increment cannot be rejected only
on this ground.
[16] In the result, it is provided that all the petitioners would be
entitled to one advance increment in terms of Rule 13(1)(ii) of ROP 2009
from the respective dates when they were brought over to regular pay
scales. This pay fixation would, however, be for notional purpose till the
date of filing of the petition after which they would be entitled to arrears of
salary. These directions shall be carried out within a period of 4(four)
months from today."
Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the State-respondents have preferred an appeal
against the said judgment. However, I am inclined to dispose of
the instant writ petition with the similar and identical direction.
Accordingly, the State-respondents are directed to pay one
increment w.e.f. the dates when they received the regular pay
scales in terms of the ROP rules. It is made clear that such
fixation of pay shall be notional. The petitioners shall be entitled
to get arrears of salary w.e.f. the date of filing of the present writ
petition i.e from 08.07.2021. It is further directed that the
respondents shall implement the order of this Court within a
period of 2(two) months from the date the petitioners shall
furnish a copy of this order to the concerned respondents.
With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition
stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
suhanjit
