Tripura High Court
Shri Suman Saha vs The State Of Tripura on 18 March, 2021
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
WP(C) No.517 of 2018
Shri Suman Saha, S/o. late Sishir Saha, Of Madhya Laxmi Bill (Near
S.B.I), P.O. Bishalgarh, Sepahijala Tripura.
......Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
1. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary Cum Commissioner,
Public Works Department (R & B), Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. NCC, Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary Cum Commissioner,
General Administration (Personnel & Training) Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex, P.O. NCC, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary Cum Commissioner,
General Administration (SA), Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. NCC, Agartala, West Tripura.
4. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (R & B), Government of
Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
5. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura,
New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura.
6. The Engineering Officer to Chief Engineer, Public Works Department
(R & B), Government of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
......Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. R. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
Date of Judgment : 18th March, 2021.
& Order
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents of
placing him in fixed salary regime at the time of his appointment for a
period of five years before granting regular pay scale. Failing this prayer,
the petitioner has also raised an issue of such fixed remuneration not being
adequate. According to the petitioner such remuneration cannot be less than
the minimum of the entry level scale of the post on which the petitioner
was appointed.
[2] Brief facts are as under :
The father of the petitioner was engaged as a pump operator
on fixed pay basis. Before he was regularized in Government service, he
expired. Under a die-in-harness scheme framed by the State Government,
the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk on
14.01.2008. The post in question carried a scale of pay of Rs.5310-24000/-
with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. The petitioner was however offered fixed pay
of Rs.2145/- per month which would be revised later on. This arrangement
would continue for five years as per the Government policy before the
petitioner would be brought over to regular scale attached to the post of
Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner accepted the appointment, worked as
Lower Division Clerk and upon completion of five years was also granted
regular scale of pay in the year 2013. Several years later the petitioner filed
a writ petition in the year 2017 and questioned placing him in the fixed pay
basis at the time of his initial appointment in the year 2008. This petition
was withdrawn on 04.05.2018 with a liberty to file a fresh petition upon
which the present petition has been filed.
[3] Appearing for the petitioner learned counsel Ms R.
Purkayastha contended that :
(i) the petitioner was appointed in a die-in-harness scheme.
The petitioner had cited many instances where Government
had appointed several persons under the said scheme on
regular scale from inception. The petitioner was discriminated.
She contended that die-in-harness scheme is a universal
scheme framed by the Government and there cannot be any
further bifurcation of persons being appointed under such
scheme for the purpose of grant of pay scales.
(ii) That the Government of Tripura scheme for fixed
remuneration initially for a period of five years, ignores the
principle of equal pay for equal work since such monthly
remuneration is lower than the entry level scale of the post in
question.
[4] On the other hand Mr. D. Sharma, learned Additional
Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that the instances
cited by the petitioner are only for the clerks of Secretariat staff which
forms an entirely different cadre and the recruitments are made through
TPSC. Government policy of engaging Group-C and D staff initially for a
period of five years on fixed salary basis specifically excludes those posts
on which appointments are to be made through TPSC. He further submitted
that the Government has framed a scheme for appointment of Group-C and
D employees initially for a period of five years on fixed salary by keeping
the regular post in abeyance. The rates of remuneration for such
engagement are revised from time to time.
[5] Coming to the first contention of the counsel for the petitioner,
it may be recalled that the petitioner was appointed in die-in-harness
scheme on the post of LDC. Long before the petitioner was so appointed,
the Government of Tripura had framed a policy under OM dated
15.12.2001 for engaging Group-C and D staffs initially for a period of five
years on fixed salary basis. This scheme itself provided that such of the
appointments to Group-C and D posts would be on fixed pay which are not
required to be filled up by selection through TPSC. The petitioner may
have been engaged under a die-in-harness scheme, nevertheless he was
being appointed on a Government post. His appointment therefore was
correctly done in terms of the said policy. Counsel for the petitioner is not
correct in contending that such policy of engaging Group-C and D staff
initially for a period of five years on fixed salary basis would not apply to
an appointee under die-in-harness scheme. Under die-in-harness scheme a
person gets offer of appointment without competing with other eligible
candidates and may also qualify for other relaxations. Nevertheless, the
appointment eventually is made on a Government post and would therefore
be governed by the prevailing Government policies.
[6] The petitioner comparing himself with the staff of Secretariat
of pay parity also is not a valid comparison. The respondents have filed the
detailed reply clarifying that the clerical staff of the Secretariat on which
appointment in die-in-harness was made on regular pay scales, is done
through TPSC. The Government policy itself excludes those Group-C and
D employees from engagement on fixed salary basis that are to be recruited
through TPSC.
[7] Coming to the petitioner's grievance about inadequate
remuneration in the fixed salary basis, the entire issue is an old one. This is
not a matter of pay scale which can be seen as a repairing issue. The
petitioner was engaged in the year 2008. His fixed salary tenure also came
to be completed in 2013. His first approach to the High Court was in the
year 2017. I would not like to open such old issues after a distant point of
time. In any case, it is a matter of wider policy considerations and larger
reparations which can be examined in a proper case.
[8] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Dipesh
