Sri Bikash Ch. Datta vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 718 Tri

                               Page 1 of 9


                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                              W.A. No.194/2021

1. Sri Bikash Ch. Datta,
   S/O- Sri Binode Bihari Datta, Ramnagar Road No. 5 (Extension),
   P.S- West Agartala, Agartala, Dist- West Tripura.

2. Sri Pradip Bhowmik,
   S/o- Sri Birendra Kumar Bhowmik, Village- Guachand,
   P.O- Harina Bazar, Sabroom, South Tripura.

                                                         .....Appellant(s)

                            Versus

1. The State of Tripura,
   (To be represented by the Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of
   Tripura) New Capital Complex, Agartala, Pin- 799006.

2. The Secretary, Department of Science, Technology & Environment,
   Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, Agartala, 799006.

3. The Director, Department of Science, Technology & Environment,
   Government of Tripura, Vijayan Prajukti Pribesh Bhavan,
   P.S- West Agartala, Agartala, P.N Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala,
   West Tripura, 799006.
                                                      .....Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)             : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. GA.


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

Date of hearing and judgment : 14.07.2021.

Whether fit for reporting    : No.



                   JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(Akil Kureshi, CJ).

This Appeal is filed by the original petitioners to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.01.2021 in W.P. (C) No.366

of 2018.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The appellants-original petitioners were appointed as

Observer/Recorder in the Department of Science, Technology and

Environment in the Government of Tripura by way of direct recruitment.

The pay scale attached to the post at the time of entry of the petitioners

was Rs.970-2400/-. The Government of Tripura appointed 4th Pay

Commission for making recommendations for revision of the pay scales of

the Government employees. It appears that the revised pay scale to the

existing scale of Rs.970-2400/- recommended by the Commission was

Rs.3200-6030/-. However, the Pay Commission had recommended that the

Observers/Recorders in Department of Science, Technology and

Environment may be placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-.

The Government of Tripura examined the recommendations of the 4th Pay

Commission and implemented the same with certain modifications by way

of Revision of Pay Rules, 1999 made effective from 1.1.1996. The revised

pay scale granted to the Observers/Recorders was Rs.3200-6030/-, which

was not in tune with the 4th Pay Commission recommendations but in the

scale corresponding to their pre-revised scale of Rs.970-2400/-.

3. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)

No.329 of 2014 and agitated their claim for higher pay scale of Rs.3300-

7100/- with effect from 01.01.1996.

4. During the pendency of this petition, the Department also seems to

have undertaken the exercise of examining this aspect which the

petitioners would like to project as a pay anomaly. This along with other

issues arising out of ROP, 1999 resulted into promulgation of 15 th

Amendment in the ROP under a Notification dated 17.11.2004. Under this

15th Amendment, Observer/Recorder in the Department of Information,

Cultural Affairs and Tourism was granted the scale of pay of Rs.3300-

7100/-. There is no dispute that in the Department of Information, Cultural

Affairs & Tourism, there was no post of Observer/Recorder. The

petitioners, therefore, contend that this portion of 15th Amendment related

to their pay scales. According to the petitioners, Government desired to

modify the pay scales of Observer/Recorder in the Department of Science,

Technology & Environment from the inception of the ROP, 1999.

5. The petitioners' first petition before the High Court came to be

decided by a judgment dated 17.08.2017. The Court was of the opinion

that the Department should reconsider the issue. It was noticed that the

Finance Department had promised that the concerns to the petitioners

would be referred for consideration before the new Pay Commission,

which would be set up in due course. However, no such Commission was

set up and the grievances of the petitioners, remained unanswered. The

Court, therefore, directed that the Government should reconsider the issue

and take a fresh decision.

6. The Government was unwilling to grant the higher pay scale to the

petitioners. Under a communication dated 17.03.2018, this was conveyed

to the petitioners. It was stated that the Finance Department had examined

the proposal for up-gradation of the pay scale, however, the request was

regretted. The petitioners thereupon filed second petition W.P. (C) No.366

of 2018 before the High Court and reiterated the prayer for grant of higher

pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- with effect from 01.01.1996. This petition was

opposed by the respondents. In an affidavit-in-reply dated 04.01.2021 filed

by the Deputy Secretary of Finance Department, Government of Tripura

the stand taken was that the Government had constituted 4 th Pay

Commission as well as anomaly committee. The Pay Commission had

recommended the revised pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/- for the post of

Observer/Recorder. The anomaly committee had recommended

maintaining the existing scale of Rs.970-2400/- and to grant corresponding

revised pay scale as per the new pay Rules. The Government examined the

proposals and decided not to upgrade the scale of pay of the

Observer/Recorder. It is pointed out that under the ROP, 1999, pre-revised

scale of Rs.970-2400/- is fitted against the revised scale of Rs.3200-6030/-,

which is what was granted to the petitioners. It is further stated that after

disposal of the writ petition by this Court by a judgment dated 17.08.2017,

the Finance Department had examined the entire matter afresh and it was

found that the petitioners were not entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.3300-

7100/-.

7. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the

petition holding that the Court cannot issue directions for grant of a

particular pay scale to a Government servant upon which the petitioners

have filed this Appeal.

8. Learned counsel, Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, appeared for the

appellants-original petitioners. She painstakingly took us through the entire

materials on record and contended that:

(i) the 4th Pay Commission had recommended pay scale of Rs.3300-7100/-

to the Observer/Recorder of the Department of Science, Technology &

Environment. The Government while framing the ROP, 1999, however,

placed them in the scale of pay of Rs.3200-6030/- which was a clear

anomaly and should have been removed.

(ii) She contended that the Government also had agreed to this position and

it was because of that, under the 15th Amendment of ROP, 1999, it was

provided that the pay scale of the Observer/Recorder would be revised to

Rs.3300-7100/- with effect from 01.01.1996. In the process, however, an

error was committed since the said post was shown in the Department of

Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism whereas in the said Department,

no such post existed which has also been admitted by the respondents.

Clearly, therefore, reference to the Observer/Recorder for the purpose of

up-gradation of the scale in the 15th Amendment was to the petitioners who

were Observer/Recorder in the Department of Science, Technology &

Environment. Instead of correcting this error, despite the recommendation

from the High Court, the Department refused to grant the petitioners higher

pay scale.

(iii) The counsel submitted that in view of such facts, the learned Single

Judge ought to have directed the respondents to assign proper pay scale to

the petitioners.

09. On the other hand, Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional

Government Advocate, opposed the Appeal and supported the judgment of

the learned Single Judge contending that in the matters of pay scales, the

Court should not interfere unless a clear case of arbitrariness or illegality is

pointed out.

10. We must admit we are rather impressed by the manner in which Ms.

Aradhita Debbarma has argued this case. However, we are not impressed

by her arguments. The record would suggest that the Observer/Recorder in

the Department of Science, Technology & Environment initially carry the

pay scale of Rs.970-2400/- (pre-revised). Under ROP, 1999, scale of

Rs.3200-6030/- corresponded to pre-revised scale of Rs.970-2400/-. This

is the scale which is also assigned to the petitioners. It is true that the Pay

Commission had recommended next higher scale for Observer/Recorder of

Rs.3300-7100/-. However, this recommendation was not accepted by the

Government. Government was of the opinion that the Observer and

Recorder should also get the same revised pay scale like all other

employees carrying the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.970-2400/-.

11. The petitioners do not have any vested right to insist that a particular

pay scale must be granted to them. It is equally well settled that the

recommendations of the Pay Commission set up by the Government are

not binding. The Government can always for proper reasons and upon

matured consideration, deviate from the recommendations made by the

Pay Commission. It is true that the 15th Amendment of ROP, 1999, there is

a reference to the scale of pay of Rs.3300-7100/- for Observer/Recorder in

the Department of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism and there

was no such post in the said Department. However, it is not possible to

presume or to extrapolate this amendment as to be applicable to the

Observer/Recorder of the Department of Science, Technology &

Environment. This is for multiple reasons. Firstly, the rules have statutory

force and must be read as they exist. Secondly, the recommended pay scale

of Rs.3300-7100/- is for "Observer/Recorder [not included in TSCS (RP)

Rules, 1999]". This would indicate that the higher pay scale of Rs.3300-

7100/- was meant for Observers or Recorders who are not included in

ROP, 1999. This would exclude the petitioners. The reference to the

revised scale of Rs.3200-6030/- in the said amendment is merely for the

purpose of fitting pre-revised scale of Rs.970-2400/- in the revised scales.

All in all, this amendment which never became effective because it

referred to the post of Observer/Recorder in a Department in which it

never existed would not enable the petitioners to claim the said higher pay

scale.

12. We have referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State in

response to the writ petition filed by the petitioners in order to demonstrate

that from the beginning all along the Government was not inclined to grant

one scale up-gradation to the Observer/Recorder of the Department of

Science, Technology & Environment under ROP, 1999. Though the Pay

Commission had recommended such up-gradation, what the Government

provided under the ROP was granting of the corresponding pay scale of

Rs.3200-6030/- which corresponded to the pre-revised scale of Rs.970-

2400/- to the Observer/Recorder of the Department of Science,

Technology & Environment.

13. In the result, Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,

also stands disposed of.

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




sima