Tarun Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Tripura And 5 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 334 Tri

                HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       AGARTALA
                  W.P.(C) No.477 of 2020
Tarun Kumar Sinha
                                                    ----Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

The State of Tripura and 5 Ors.
                                                  ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)      :      Ms. S. Deb Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      :      Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

                              Ms. P. Dhar, Adv.

                              Mr. D. Sharma, Adv.


            HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

                               Order
15/03/2021

Heard Ms. S. Deb Gupta, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl.

G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and also heard Ms.

P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. Mr.

D. Sharma, learned counsel appears for the respondents No.5 &

6. None appears for the respondent No.4 despite due notice

from this court.

02. The grievance of the petitioner falls within a short

compass. The petitioner had been working as the Head Clerk in

the sub-ordinate Judiciary and he had retired from the service

on superannuation with effect from 31.03.2018 having

completed 35 years 4 months and 29 days of continuous

service. At the time of retirement, the petitioner received

Dearness Relief (DR) @142%. From 01.10.2018 the petitioner

started to receive enhanced rate of DR @ 154%. In support

thereof, the petitioner has produced the Pension Payment Order

[PPO], Annexures-2 & 3 to this petition. The respondent No.2

i.e. the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of

Tripura issued the memorandum under No.F.5(6)FIN(G)/79(P-

II) dated 13.11.2019 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] declaring

the enhanced rate of DR from 154% to 164% with effect from

01.07.2019.

03. The grievance of the petitioner, in short, is that the

in-service employees of the subordinate judiciary have been

receiving a Dearness Allowance(DA) @ 164% with effect from

01.07.2019 in terms of the said memorandum dated

13.11.2019. The petitioner was in expectation that his DR

would be fixed @164% with effect from 01.07.2019. Despite

the notice of demand was pressed for releasing such rate of DR

the notice of demand was issued on 18.02.2020 [Annexure-6 to

the writ petition]. Thus, the petitioner was denied

enhancement.

04. The petitioner received the reply from the UCO Bank,

Pension Cell, from the petitioner used to draw the pension

intimating that, for pendency of Special Leave Petition (Civil),

the order dated 31.08.2016 as passed by this court has been

put on hold by the respondents No.1 & 2. Till such litigation is

over, the enhanced rate of 164% with effect from 01.07.2019

cannot be given to the petitioner. But in the reply, the bank-

respondents who are not determining authority of pension have

not given the reply how the in-service employees of the

subordinate judiciary are getting 164% D.A. with effect from

01.07.2019 by dint of the said memorandum dated 13.11.2019.

05. There is no dispute that under 6th CPC the Dearness

Relief and Dearness Allowance is equal and both in-service

employees and the pensioners are entitled to get the same

amount of DA and DR. Even the petitioner had received such

amount i.e. 154% DR equal to DA of the in-service employees

at the relevant point of time. But this time the respondents

have treated the petitioner differently. It has been admitted by

the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents No.1 & 2 that

the apex court has not granted any stay order on the operation

of the judgment dated 31.08.2016 as delivered in W.P.(C)

No.617 of 2015. But the fact that cannot be denied is that the

judgment dated 31.08.2016 has been challenged by the

respondents No.1 & 2. By the said judgment, this court had

observed that the pay package of the employees of the

subordinate judiciary has been consciously delinked by the

Shetty Commission from the State Government employees. The

apex court by the order dated 16.03.2015 delivered in IA No.

297 and I.A. No.71A in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989

had clearly observed that the other benefit shall also be

released in terms of the 6th Central Pay Commission [6th CPC]

on the pay-scale as recommended for the employees of the

subordinate judiciary by the Shetty Commission. Accordingly,

this court passed the said order in the following terms:

"When the other benefits are delinked from the pay scales, those shall invariably mean and imply the allowances those are extended to the Central Government employees and hence the employees of the subordinate judiciary shall get all such allowances, emanating from 6th Central Pay Commission recommendation as the „other benefits‟ in terms of the said judgment."

06. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to DR @ 164%

with effect from 01.07.2019. It is accordingly ordered.

However, release of 164% DR will be subject to the outcome of

the said SLP as referred above. The arrears shall be paid within

a period of 2(two) months by the respondents No.5 & 6. The

respondents No.5 & 6 shall release the said arrear within two

months from the date when a copy of this order be furnished by

the petitioner to the respondents No.5 & 6.

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Moumita