Wp(C) No.1338/2019 vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 694 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 3




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                          1. WP(C) No.1338/2019
Sri Sankar Chandra Sen
                                                             ----Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
The State of Tripura and others
                                                          -----Respondent(s)

Connected with

2. WP(C) No.1339/2019 Sri Jyotish Chakraborty

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

-----Respondent(s)

3. WP(C) No.1349/2019 Sri Gautam Narayan Ghosh

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

-----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A., Mr. P. Saha, Advocate, Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

Order

09/07/2021

These petitions arise in common background. They have been

heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For

convenience, we may record facts from WP(C) No.1338 of 2019.

The request of the petitioner is that the Tripura State Civil

Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 be given effect from 01.01.2016 instead

of 01.04.2017 as has been given by the State Government. In the prayer

clause the petitioner has erroneously referred to the Government of Tripura

notification dated 11.10.2018 which should be given effect from

01.01.2016. Learned advocate clarified that this was due to oversight and

the expectation of the petitioner is that the Revised Pay Rules of 2017 be

effective from 01.01.2016.

As is well-known, the Governments State as well as the Centre

periodically implement revision in pay rules through various modes. These

revisions are preceded by constitution of Pay Commissions whose

recommendations are examined by the Government before implementation

with or without modifications. There is no vested interest in the petitioner to

insist that the revision of pay rules must be from a particular date. The same

depends on various factors such as, the passage of time since the previous

pay revision, inflation and ability of the administration to pay higher wages.

Only ground raised by the petitioner in support of the demand is that since

last three or four successive Pay Commissions, the State Government has

been framing revised pay rules at the intervals of 10 years. The last pay

revision was effected in the year 2006. The petitioners, therefore, argue that

the present pay revision also be effective after 10 years, i.e. from

01.01.2016.

The petitioners have not made out any case. As noted, the

effective date of introducing pay rules is always with the administration.

Merely because in the past such pay revisions were effected at the intervals

of 10 years by itself would not give rise to a vested right in favour of the

employees.

In the result, petitions are dismissed.

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

(AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Pulak