Present vs For The
2021 Latest Caselaw 686 Tri

                                    Page 1 of 2


                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                         WP(C) 281 OF 2021

             Sri Ratan Datta Vrs. State of Tripura & 3 Ors.

Present:
    For the petitioner (s)      : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.

    For the respondent (s)      : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Senior G.A.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 08.07.2021 Order

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for transmitting the records, lying with them, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioner;

ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, for mandating/directing the respondents, to forthwith fix the corresponding pay of the petitioner under the Tripura Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, the Tripura Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 & the Tripura Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, with grant of arrears thereof, as elaborated in Paragraph 5 supra;

iv) Call for the records appertaining to this writ petition;

v) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule Absolute in terms of Reliefs i. to ii. Above;

vi) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;

vii) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;"

At the very outset, Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in WA 232/2019 [titled as State of

Tripura Vrs. Sutapa Majumder]. This Court allowed time to learned Sr. G.A. to examine the judgment whether the present writ petition is covered by the said judgment. Today when the matter came up before the court Mr. Dhar, learned Sr. G.A. has conceded that the subject matter of the present writ petition and reliefs sought for therein are squarely covered by the judgment passed in WA 232/2019 (supra). But, Mr. Dhar, learned Sr. G.A. further submitted that the State has preferred a SLP against the said judgment before the Supreme Court which is now pending.

It is transpired at Para 19 of the judgment passed in WA 232/2019 that the judgment of the Division Bench passed in rem asking the respondents to extend the similar benefits, as stated in the judgment, to all the similarly situated persons. It is admitted that the petitioner is a similarly situated person to those of the appellants in WA No.232/2019.

In view of this, the respondents are directed to extend similar benefits to the petitioner as those of the pharmacists named in WA No.232/2019.

With the aforesaid direction the instant writ petition stands allowed and thus disposed off.

JUDGE