Wp(C) No.665/2017 vs The State Of Tripura & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 140 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 7




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                          1. WP(C) No.665/2017
Sri Debasis Biswas & others
                                                   ----Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
The State of Tripura & others
                                                 -----Respondent(s)

Connected with

2. WP(C) No.682/2017 Shri Sridam Das

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

3. WP(C) No.683/2017 Shri Pranoy Sarkar

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

4. WP(C) No.684/2017 Shri Ajit Patari

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

5. WP(C) No.685/2017 Smti. Mausumi Das

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

6. WP(C) No.686/2017 Smti. Joyasree Dey

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

7. WP(C) No.687/2017 Shri Subhendu Majumder

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

8. WP(C) No.688/2017 Sri Somen Kumar Das

----Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Tripura & others

-----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate, Ms. Swarupa Chisim, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Date of hearing and judgment : 9th February, 2021.

      Whether fit for reporting        : NO.


                    JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

These petitions arise in common background and would be

disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we may record

facts from WP(C) No.665 of 2017.

2. Petitioners have challenged vires of amendment of Rule 10 of

Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 by virtue of 15th Amendment Rule of 2016. All

the petitioners are employees of Government of Tripura and enjoying pay

fixations in Pay Bands-3, 2, 1 etc. Government of Tripura revises the

salaries and pay structure of the employees periodically under Revision of

Pay Rules. These pay rules have career advancement or career progression

schemes under which an employee who stagnates in a cadre without

promotion for a requisite number of years of service, gets a pay or scale

upgradation. Under Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 such career advancement

scheme was made. ROP, 1999 were substituted by ROP, 2009 and were

brought into effect from 1.1.2006. Rule 10 of ROP 2009 contained an

Assured Career Progression Scheme which would be implemented w.e.f.

01.01.2006. This would be in substitution of the previous career

advancement scheme contained in ROP, 1999. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule

10 of ROP, 2009 all the Government employees in Pay Band-1, 2 and 3 will

be entitled to maximum three financial upgradations, first after 10 years of

service, second after 7 years and third after 8 years of service provided the

concerned employee has not got three numbers of benefits of scale

upgradation including promotion. With respect to Pay Band-4 this rule

provided that the employees would be entitled to 3, 2 and 1 financial

upgradations respectively under scheme provided the concerned employee

had not got scale upgradation including promotion up to respective scales

already. This rule was amended by Tripura State Civil Services (Revised

Pay) (5th Amendment) Rules, 2016 published under notification dated

30.06.2016 but brought into effect from 01.01.2006. As per this amendment

under sub rule (1) of Rule 10 in case of employees who had been appointed

directly in pre-revised scale of Rs.7,800-15,100/- under the cadre service,

the first financial upgradation will be available on completion of 4 years of

continuous and satisfactory service in the grade or post. According to the

petitioners, this amendment has brought about an anomaly and, therefore,

the rule is arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned advocates for the petitioners

pointed out that under ROP, 1999 Rule 10 as it existed, all the employees

would get benefit of ACP upon completion of 10 years, 7 years and 8 years

respectively of service without promotion. For direct entrant to cadres

carrying pay in Pay Band-4, this period has been brought down to 4 years

for the first ACP benefit. As against these employees, the other employees

like the petitioners have to wait for 10 years before the benefit of first ACP

is granted. According to them, there is no basis for making this distinction

between two classes of employees who are otherwise similarly situated.

3. The respondents have appeared and filed affidavits and opposed

the petitions. It is pointed out that under Rule 10 of ROP, 2009 there was no

clarity as to after what period of stagnation an employee in Pay Band-4

would get the benefit of ACP. Under ROP, 1999 such period was 4 years.

By amendment thus this position has been clarified. The administration did

not find it necessary to modify this requirement which was already existing

in the previous pay rules.

4. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused documents on record, we do not find that the petitioners have made

out any case for declaring the rule as invalid or ultra vires. As is well settled,

essentially the issue of granting proper pay scales to the employees is to be

left to the administration which has the necessary knowhow and assistance

of expert bodies like Pay Commissions. The career advancement or career

progression schemes are essentially creations of the statutes and depend on

the policy decision of the Government. These schemes are framed to ensure

that an employee who on account of non-availability of promotional posts is

unable to make an upward movement to the promotional cadre, gets relief in

the form of grant of higher pay scale or grade. What should be the

appropriate period of stagnation before an employee can claim such upward

movement in the pay fixation without actual physical promotion, must

depend on the scheme framed by the Government for such purpose.

5. The petitioners are included in such schemes for ACP under

Rule 10 of ROP, 2009 and would continue to draw the same benefit even

after the amendment which has triggered these petitions. The reason for

dissatisfaction of the petitioners is that for them the period of service needed

for claiming ACP is 10 years. As against this, for direct entrants in cadres

placed in Pay Band-4 this has been reduced to 4 years. The Government has

pointed out that in the Rule 10 as it was initially framed under ROP, 2009,

there was no clarity about this gestation period for an employee in Pay

Band-4 to get the benefit of ACP. To clarify this position an amendment was

made with retrospective effect and the period of 4 years was introduced as

was the case under ROP, 1999 also. These services in Pay Band-4 are

Tripura State Services such as, Tripura Administrative Service, Tripura

Police Service etc. The petitioners who belong to an entirely different cadre

cannot claim the benefits given to a particular cadre on the basis of

requirements of the administration and the decision of the Government. The

concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be stretched

to this level. If for attracting more talented young officers to join Tripura

State Service, a benefit which was even otherwise available under the

previous ROP is introduced by way of a clarification, surely the members of

other cadres cannot claim parity on such basis. No case for interference is

made out.

6. All petitions are dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Pulak