Tripura High Court
Bikash Ch. Datta And Another vs State Of Tripura & Others on 7 January, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.366 of 2018
Bikash Ch. Datta and Another
..........Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Tripura & Others
..........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. Govt. Adv.
Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
07/01/2021
Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior government advocate assisted
by Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner have urged this court to
direct the respondents to set aside the office order No.F.11(34)/DSTE/CC/Pt-
I/1421-23 dated 17.03.2018 issued by the Department of Science, Technology and
Environment. It has been urged that the respondents be directed to place the
petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 with all
consequential benefits. The petitioners have further urged this court to decide their
family pension on the basis of their pay in the pay scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/- w.e.f.
01.01.1996 and the corresponding scales, as revised, in terms of the subsequent
revision.
3. This is the second round of litigation. The writ petitioners had
approached this court earlier with the same set of grievances. The said writ petition
being WP(C)No.329 of 2014 was disposed of having observed inter alia that by way
of Tripura State Civil Services (15th Amendment) Rules, 2004, the pay scale for the
post of Observer/Recorder under the ICAT Department was modified to Rs.3,300-
7,100/-. But for the petitioners who were serving under the Department of Science,
Technology and Environment [DSTE, in short] in the post namely
Observer/Recorder, no such amendment had been carried out. In the writ petition,
the petitioners have stated that that entry was made by mistake under the ICAT
Department. The entry ought to have been made under the DSTE Department. For
that purpose, no record could be produced in that writ petition. For the posts of
Observer/Recorder under the DSTE Department, no such recommendation was
available. To avoid any confusion by the judgment dated 17.08.2017, this court
had occasion to observe as follows :
"The reference is therefore due. It is also on record that the Pay
Review Committee did not consider the proposal sent by the
department nor the new Pay Commission has been set up. As a
result, the petitioners' grievance remained un-remedied. In view
of that, the Finance Department, Government of Tripura is directed
to consider whether the post of Observer/Recorder under the
DSTE ought to have been borne in the pay scale of Rs.3,300-
7,100/- and decide within 3(three) months from the day when the
petitioners shall submit a copy of this order. If decided in the
positive, the petitioners shall be entitled to the pay scale of
Rs.3300-7100/- with the corresponding revision and the
movement under the CAS and the ACP based on the pay scale of
Rs.3,300-7,100/-. Apparent it is on the basis of the records that
the DSTE had given justification why they had proposed the pay
scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/-. Even in the reply the respondents have
admitted, though not directly, that the respondents have the
sympathy for the petitioners so far it concerns with the grant of
pay scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/-. Therefore, keeping all these aspects
in consideration, the Finance Department take the decision. The
arrears of pay and allowances, if decided favourably, shall be
released within a period of 6(six) months from the date of the
decision."
In terms thereof, the writ petition was disposed of.
In terms of the said order, the Department of Science, Technology and
Environment by their Note No.6 under the File No.F.4(97)/DSTE/Estt/Pt-I/Loose
had proposed to the Finance Department, after placing the copy of the anomaly
Committee whereby it was recommended to maintain the existing pay scale for
those posts, whether the said scale of pay of Rs.3,300-7,100/- can be granted to
the petitioners for their occupying the posts of Recorder/Observer.
4. Since, this court had directed to consider whether the pay scale of
Rs.3,300-7,100/- can be given to the petitioners for their occupying the post of
Recorder/Observer, the DSTE suggested so, for granting the pay scale of Rs.3,300-
7,100/-. They had proposed the following alternatives viz.(a) the Finance
Department (FD) may negate the proposal as the same is not covered in the
present scenario. The Finance Department also consider a special pay of Rs.100/-
to the Observer/Recorder under ROP Rules, 1999 and settle the case accordingly.
Similar special pay, as noted, was allowed to the Forest Guard working in the
Forest Department w.e.f. 01.01.1999. The Finance Department having examined
this matter under Note No.27 has observed as follows :
Note No.27
Ref.Note No.25 of the Department.
"Text "The proposal of the department for up-gradation of pay
scale of the post of Observer/Recorder under the Department of
Science, Technology and Environment has been carefully examined
in light of the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court in
WP(C)No.329 of 2014 along with the records made available by
the administrative department and other documents. After careful
examination of the matter it is informed that the Finance
Department does not find any merit in the claim of the petitioners
to allow them the pay scale of R.3,300-7,100/- under ROP Rules,
1999. Accordingly, the proposal of the Department is regretted."
The said decision has been communicated in the DSTE Department by
the impugned order dated 17.03.2018 [Annexure-25 to the writ petition].
5. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has submitted that the grievance of the petitioners has not taken proper
care while taking the decision on the direction of this court. He has further
submitted that when by way of 15th Amendment of the ROP Rules, 1999 for the
similar posts, the said pay scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/- was provided to the ICAT,
even though, no such post did exist in that department, the Finance Department
ought to have explored for whom such amendment was carried out. But that
exercise had not been taken up.
That apart, from the evaluation of the pay scale, it would be apparent
that for the said post, down-graded scale has been given when the purpose of
revision is to up-grade the scale in the context of inflation and fall of the value etc.
6. Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior government advocate, assisted by Mr. M.
Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has quite robustly
submitted that the recommendation of the 4th Tripura Pay Commission for allowing
the pay scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/- for the post of Recorder/Observer under the
Department of Science, Technology and Environment was not accepted by the
State Government and that has created a new situation. The pay-scale of those
posts, existing in the DSTE was revised to Rs.3,200-6,030/- from their pre-revised
pay scale of Rs.9,70-2,400/- as provided by ROP Rules, 1988. It has been further
contended by Mr. Dhar, learned senior government advocate that the proposed pay
scale Rs.1,020-2,620/- was not considered by the Alimony Committee constitute
under the 4th Tripura Pay Commission. Thus, in absence of recommendation from
the said Anomaly Committee, no further benefit can be considered abruptly. That
apart, Mr. Dhar, learned senior government advocate has referred to para-10 of
their reply which reads as under :
"That, in para 16 of the Writ petition the Petitioners have referred
ROP (15th Amendment) Rules, 2004 which came in force from
01.01.1996 in terms of notification of the Government of Tripura
dated 17.11.2004 and claimed modification of Pay Scale of the
Petitioners to Rs.3300-7010/- from 3200-6030/- w.e.f.
01.01.1996. In para-17 of the Writ petition, the petitioners have
stated that by mistake in the said Rules of 2004 the post of
Observer/Recorder had been shown in the Department of
Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism where no such post of
Observer/Recorder exists. Such alleged mistake, if any, cannot
help the Petitioners in regard with their claims while the Revision
of Pay Scale Rules, 2004 is not under challenge and it was never
challenged by the Petitioners. Further the petitioners are not
serving the Department of Information, Cultural Affairs and
Tourism but have working under the Department of Science,
Technology and Environment."
7. Mr. Dhar, learned senior government advocate has further submitted
that the enthusiasm of the petitioners to garner the benefit by dint of the
recommendation as made for the ICA Department was based on no records. No
record has been produced. Thus, what falls from the with the 15th Amendment
Rules, 2004 cannot benefit the petitioners. The Finance Department has taken a
serious exercise and thereafter, regretted to up-grade the pay scale for the post of
Recorder/Observer existing in the DSTE.
8. Having considered the rival contentions and in view of the observation
made in the previous writ petition, this court may not lay hand on the decision of
the expert Department, inasmuch as this is beyond the limit of the judicial review
and the domain strictly lies with the executive. Moreover, no stark material has
been placed before this court to interfere on infringement of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Having observed thus, this writ petition stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Records as produced by Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior government
advocate be returned.
JUDGE
Sabyasachi B
