Tripura High Court
Smt. Mamata Singha Roy vs The State Of Tripura on 4 January, 2021
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.133/2020
Smt. Mamata Singha Roy
.......... Appellant(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura
.......... Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mrs. S Deb(Gupta) Govt. Adv.,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalaya Bhattacharjee, Govt. Adv.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_ R_
04/01/2021
(Akil Kureshi, CJ).
This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24th January, 2020 passed in
WP(C) No.16/2018.
The petitioner was working in the Fish Farmers Development
Agencies (FFDA). She retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31st January, 2017
as an Upper Division Clerk. In the petition, she had prayed for directions
to the Government to implement Tripura State Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2009 ("ROP 2009" for short) in her employer organization.
She heavily relied on a letter dated 20th July, 2010 issued by the Joint
Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Finance, to
Page - 2 of 5
various semi-government organizations under which request was made for
implementing the pay revision in terms of the said ROP 2009. However,
since the employees of FFDA were not granted such pay revisions the
said petition came to be filed.
Government had appeared in the writ petition and filed a reply.
Crux of the opposition of the Government in such reply was under :
"The finance Department has examined the proposal of Fisheries
Department regarding adoption of pay structure (Pay Band and
Grade Pay Model) as like as State Government employees for the
FFDA employees in place of the existing adopted system of scale to
scale revision of pay. While examination of the proposal, it has
come to the notice of Finance Department that the Fish Farmers
Development Agencies set up way back in 1978, 1979 and 1982 in
different districts under Central Sector Scheme on 50:50 share
basis, out of which the pay of FFDA staff was also borne. During
that time FFDA was introduced, there was no problem of the
funding the pay of the staff of FFDA because 50% was borne by
Central Government. So, the staff of FFDA were allowed revised
pay scale as like the State Govt. employees. But in the year, 2005
the Central Govt. declined to bear the expenses of salary etc. of
FFDA staff and from then onwards the entire burden of salary of
FFDA staff fell upon the State Government. The sudden increase in
the overall financial liability towards payment of 100% of Salary
FFDA staff made it difficult for the State Govt. to cope up the
inflated figures of expenditure. The situation became more complex
because the State Govt. had to provide funds under State share
under different Central Government schemes run by FFDA. So,
further increase in the additional burden towards payment of
salaries for FFDA staff became unmanageable."
Page - 3 of 5
After hearing learned counsel for the parties the learned Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition placing heavy reliance on the decisions
of Supreme Court in case of A K Bindal and Anr. Vs.Union of India and
Ors. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 and Pyare Lal Sharma Vs. Managing
Director, Jammu & Kashmir Industries Ltd. and Ors. reported in (1989)
3 SCC 443. The learned Single Judge observed as under:
"9. There is no dispute that FFDAs are societies funded by the
Central Government and the State Government. Even though the
petitioner has denied that the Central Government has stopped
funding FFDAs since 2005, but no records in this regard has been
placed before us. As such, this cannot brush aside the statement of
the state government for any reason. The pertinent question that
arises in this writ petition is whether this court can issue a
direction upon the respondents to give the petitioner the benefits of
revision of pay structure under the pay band system and its
subsequent benefits as brought about by the subsequent revisions.
10. Per se the employees of FFDAs cannot be treated as the state
government employees. Even this court cannot direct the state
government or the respondent No.2 to release the benefit to the
petitioner in terms of ROP Rules, 2009 or under pay revision
introduced by the pay band system, inasmuch as that would be an
intrusion to the fiscal management. The respondents have taken a
stand that to provide the fund for introducing the scale to scale
revision was an uphill task. To take a decision involving an
additional financial burden falls within the exclusive executive
domain. In this regard, a decision of the apex court would gainfully
be referred. In A.K. Bindal and Another versus Union of India
and Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163, the apex court has held
that the identity of the government company remains distinct from
Page - 4 of 5
the government those are brought under a special system of
control. Even the employees of the government companies are not
civil servant and hence they are not entitled to protection afforded
by Article 311 of the Constitution [see Pyare Lal Sharma versus
Managing Director : (1989 3 SCC 443)] . Thereafter, it has been
succinctly held as under:
"Since employees of government companies are not
government servants, they have absolutely no legal right
to claim that the Government should pay their salary or
that the additional expenditure incurred on account of
revision of their pay scale should be met by the
Government. Being employees of the companies it is the
responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if
the company is sustaining losses continuously over a
period and does not have the financial capacity to revise
or enhance the pay scale, the petitioners cannot claim
any legal right to ask for a direction to the Central
Government to meet the additional expenditure which
may be incurred on account of revision of pay scales."
We do not find the learned Single Judge committed any error. It
was noticed that previously the organization received financial assistance
in equal measure from the Central Government and the State Government
under central sector scheme. Subsequently, however, the Central
Government withdrew its support and the entire financial burden,
therefore, was on the State Government to sustain the said scheme. When
the question granting revised pay scales to the employees of the said
agency as per ROP 2009 came up for consideration, a proposal made by
the agency was examined by the Finance Department. It was found that
the State Government was unable to carry the additional burden of salaries
Page - 5 of 5
which may arise on account of implementation of the revised pay
structure. The said agency was, therefore, not permitted to implement the
ROP for its employees. Learned Single Judge correctly recorded that no
directions can be issued to the Government for implementing the revised
pay structure.
Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J ) ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )
Sukhendu
