Tripura High Court
Sri Mrinal Kanti Ghosh vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 23 September, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.1279/2019
Sri Mrinal Kanti Ghosh
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and others
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Order
23/09/2021
Learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee
pointed out that the issues raised by the petitioner are squarely covered by a
judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 26.04.2021 passed in W.A.
No.109 of 2021 and connected appeals in case of Sri Dulal Goswami vrs.
The State of Tripura and others. In the said judgment while upholding the
decision of the learned Single Judge the Division Bench has made following
observations:
"8. We do not find that the learned Single Judge has
committed any error. Few things are not in dispute. The
petitioners' entry level scale of pay was Rs.970-2,400/-. This
was revised to Rs.3,200-6,030/-. Upon completion of 10
years of service, they were given the benefit of ACP-I and
their pay was fixed in the higher scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/-.
The scale next higher to this scale of Rs.3,300-7,100/- was
Rs.4,000-7,890/-. Thus, upon completion of further 7 years
of service, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of
ACP-II and their pay ought to have been fixed in the scale of
pay of Rs.4,000-7,890/-. The department instead fixed their
pay in the scale of Rs.4,200-8,650/- which was clearly an
error. Thus, all the petitioners received benefit of two scale
advancements in one go in August, 2007 when their pay was
fixed in the next higher scale of Rs.4,200-8,650/- instead of
Rs.4,000-7,890/-. They having thus consumed three scale
advancements in all, the benefit of third scale advancement
under ACP or CAS as per the prevalent rules and regulations
of the Government at the end of 25 years of total service,
was not available.
9. We do not find force in the contention of the counsel
for the petitioners that they having crossed the stage of
Rs.4,000/- as the basic pay in the scale of pay of Rs.3,300-
7,100/-, the department had consciously granted them the
benefit of next higher scale of Rs.4,200-8,650/-. In the
promotional and pay scale hierarchies of the Government
pay structures, several pay scales often times to some extent
overlap. The phenomena, therefore, that a Government
employee at the time of his promotion might have crossed
the entry level pay of the promotional post in his feeder
cadre is not uncommon at all. At the time of promotion,
therefore, his pay in the feeder cadre would be protected and
his pay in the promotional post would be fixed with
reference to F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) or any other applicable rule. For
example, in the present case itself the petitioners were
enjoying the scale of pay of Rs.3,300-7,100/-. Next higher
scale carried the scale of pay of Rs.4,000-7,890/-. If after 7
or 8 years of service any of the petitioners had got promotion
to the next higher post, it was entirely possible that by that
time his basic pay in the feeder cadre would have exceeded
Rs.4,000/-. Despite this, on promotion his pay would have
been fixed in the scale of Rs.4,000-7,890/- and not on the
higher scale of Rs.4,200-8,650/-. In the scale of pay of Rs.
3300-7100/- it is also possible for an employee to have
reached a stage beyond Rs. 4200/- as his basic pay which is
the entry level pay of one grade above the promotional scale
of Rs. 4000-7890/-.
10. It is unfortunate that the department is not following
this policy consistently and going by the petitioners'
contention, has granted the benefit of third scale
advancement to similarly situated employees. This, in our
opinion, though erroneous, would not give rise to a claim of
equality. As is well settled through series of judgments of
Supreme Court, the concept of equality emerging from
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be applied
negatively. In other words, wrong committed in favour of
one person would not enable the petitioners to claim parity
on the basis of equality clause.
11. In the result, we find no merits in the appeals. The
appeals are dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
