For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 1127 Tri

                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA

                          IA No. 02 of 2021
                      in WP (C) No. 354 of 2010

For Applicant(s)               : Ms. R Purkayastha, Adv.

For Respondent(s)              : Mr. D Sarma, Addl. GA.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Order 17.11.2021

Heard Ms. R Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. D Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the

respondents No.3 & 4.

The review petition as preferred by the writ petitioner is confined

to only one aspect i.e. that no express direction has been made as

regards revision or change in the pay scale either by the order of the

court or by operation of pay revision rules.

Having regard to the nature of the issue raised in this review

petition, this review petition stands disposed of with the following

direction:

If the writ petitioner is entitled to any other superior scale

or revised scale in terms of the revision of the pay rules or

by the direction/order of the court, it is needless to say that

all such benefits will be entitled to the petitioner based on

the pay scale that has been declared by this court and

benefits be extended to the petitioner against the post of

the Commercial Manager.

Since this will not bring any change in the direction as issued vide

the judgment dated 16.03.2021 delivered in WP(C) No. 354/2020, no

formal notice has been issued on the other respondents inasmuch as, it

is the administrative rule that the court's order be followed in respect of

pay and allowances and it shall not be confined only to one particular

judgment but it shall be subject to further changes subject to the order

of the court or the rule or the policy, but shall not be inconsistent to the

court's direction.

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Satabdi