Tripura High Court
Md. Babul Miah vs The State Of Tripura (Through The ... on 16 December, 2022
1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 114/2022
Md. Babul Miah S/O. Late Md. Rahamat Ali, resident of vill.-
Matinagar, P.O. Rayermura, P.S. Amtali, Tripura West.
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1.The State of Tripura (Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat
Complex, P.O. New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN - 799010.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, Government of
Tripura, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West
Tripura, PIN-799001.
-----Respondent(s)
WA 113/2022
Md. Abu Jalal Miah S/O. Kudrat Ali, resident of Vill.-
Matinagar, P.O. Rayermura, P.S. Amtali, Tripura West.
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1.The State of Tripura (Through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat
Complex, P.O. New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura, West Tripura, PIN- 799010.
2.The Director of Elementary Education, Government of
Tripura, Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District West
Tripura, PIN - 799001.
-----Respondent(s)
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
2
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S.K.Deb, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B.Debnath, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.Debbarma, Addl.GA.
Date of hearing : 18.11.2022
Date of delivery of : 16.12.2022
Judgment and Order
Whether fit for reporting
Yes No
JUDGMENT
(S.G.Chattopadhyay), J
[1] Both of these appeals are arising out of the common
judgment and order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(C) No.200 of 2022 and WP(C)No.201 of 2022. The
facts and law involved in the appeals being identical, they are
combined together for disposal by this common judgment.
[2] The sole question arising for our consideration in these
appeals are whether the appellants are entitled to the benefits from
the date of their appointment under the grant in aid Madrassas
alike the petitioners of WP(C) No.438 of 2016 [Md. Abdul Malik
Vs.State of Tripura and Ors.].
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
[3] Heard Mr. S.K.Deb, learned Sr. Advocate appearing
along with Mr. B.Debnath, advocate for the appellants as well as
Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the state
respondents.
[4] The brief facts of the applicant's case are that they
were appointed as Madrassa teachers in fixed pay under Grants in
Aid scheme with the approval of the Director of School Education,
Government of Tripura[Respondent No.2], by notification dated
08.03.2011[Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition]. In the said
notification, the names of the appellants appear at Sl.No.30 and 31.
The said notification also indicates that they were appointed as
Under Graduate Madrassa teachers and they were placed in fixed
pay of Rs.5,660/- keeping in abeyance the regular scale of pay of
Rs.5,310/- -24,000/-.
[5] Mr. S.K.Deb, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the
appellants has argued that the notification dated
08.03.2011[Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition] clearly demonstrates
that both of the appellants were graduates on the date of their
appointment as Madrassa teachers. Appellant Abu Jalal Miah of
Writ Appeal No.113 of 2022 was a Bachelor in pure Science,
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
whereas the other appellant namely Babul Miah of Writ Appeal
No.114 of 2022 was a Commerce graduate (B.Com). Even though
they were graduates, they were placed in fixed pay of Rs.5,670/- in
the pay scale of Rs.5310/--24000/- meant for the Under Graduate
Madrassa teachers. Learned counsel has contended that both of
the appellants being similarly situated with the petitioners of
WP(C)No.438 of 2016 are entitled to the same benefits as per
judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in WP(C)No.438 of 2016
[Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition] which was also upheld in Writ
Appeal with minor modification by judgment and order dated
11.02.2010 [Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition]. Learned counsel
has referred to the said judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in
WP(C)No. 438 of 2016 [Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition] which
reads as under:
"[7] There is no dispute that the petitioners have either
Bachelors Degree, Kamil [2-3 years, general], MM [2
years, till 1997] from the West Bengal Madrassa Board,
Madrassa Final [MF] from the Assam Madrassa Board and Fazil,
Afjal, Ulama, Afjajul Ullom and Fazeleat from the Madrassas
recognized by the Central or the State Government Board or the
Universities of India. There is no dispute that at the time
bringing the Madrassas under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme by the
State, all the petitioners were serving in the Madrassas.
From the notification dated 19.07.2013 [Annexure-P/7 to
the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.439 of 2016], it is apparent
that the persons appointed in the Junior Madrassas, Fazil
Madrassas, catalogued in Annexures-A & B appended to
the said notification dated 19.07.2013 have been given the
fixed pay keeping the scale of pay of Rs.5300-24000/- with
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
G.P. Rs.2400 [PB-2] w.e.f. 01.08.2013 [for the persons
catalogued in Annexure-A] and the scale of pay of
Rs.5300-24000/- with G.P. Rs.2100 [PB2] w.e.f.
01.08.2013 [for the persons catalogued in Annexure-B]
in abeyance. According to the reply filed by the
respondents, the said notification is applicable for the
persons who were appointed directly after the
management of the Madrassas brought under the Grant-
in-Aid Scheme.
[8] The state cannot make such unreasonable distinction
amongst the persons in the same class for the reason
that they were absorbed under the Grant-in-Aid
establishment in consideration of their appointments
made by the private management but the state did not
dispute that the petitioners and those persons benefited
by the notification dated 19.07.2013 are holding the
same status and discharging exactly the same duties. It
has been admitted by the respondents, as it would be
evident from the reply, that the petitioners are getting
the pay scale of Rs.1300-3320/- from the date of their
appointment under the Grant-in-Madrassas but they have
not given that benefit in terms of the notification dated
19.07.2013. They are entitled to the equal pay and hence,
the respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the
notification dated 19.07.2013 form the date of their
appointment under the Grant-in-Madrassas meaning
from the day when they were absorbed under the Grant-
in-Aid Scheme. The petitioners shall not be kept in the
fixed pay by keeping their regular scale of pay in
abeyance for 5[five] years, if the petitioners had
completed five years of service before they were brought
under the Grant-in-Aid Madrassas. The arrears as may
accrue for the above direction shall be paid within 6[six]
months from the date when the petitioners shall furnish
a copy of this order to the respondent No.2.
Emphasis added"
[6] Counsel has also referred to the judgment dated
11.02.2010[Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition] passed in the writ
appeal, the relevant extract of which is as under:
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
"The Government does not dispute that all the petitioners
are serving as regular teachers, Graduate as well as Post
Graduate in educational institutions which are covered
within the fold of Grant-in-Aid. All the petitioners also
possess requisite educational qualifications acquired
from various educational institutions situated in West
Bengal and Assam which by the notification dated
23.06.2010 have been recognized as equivalent to the
degrees issued by Tripura Education Board and Tripura
University. That being the position, there is no distinction
in either the educational qualifications or the nature of
duties performed by the petitioners vis-a-vis 33 teachers
who under the said notification dated 19th July, 2013 are
granted certain pay scale. In absence of any other
distinction, mere fact that some of the teachers were
employed prior to a cut-off date and some post the said
date of 23.06.2010, could not be a ground for denying
equal wages. The decision to treat specified degrees
issued by educational institutions situated in West
Bengal and Assam as equivalent to those issued by
Tripura Education Board and Tripura University, may
have been taken on 23rd June, 2010, the same must be
applied to all those who have been granted such
certificates irrespective of the date of grant of the same.
Any other view would make the qualifications of the
petitioners not satisfying with the requirements of
employment. Even otherwise, the said notification dated
23rd June 2010, nowhere provides that only those
teachers who obtained such certificates from the
specified institutions after the date of the notification can
claim equivalence with the State certificates. Even the
State has not raised any such contention. The cause of
action arose with the Government passing the impugned
notification dated 19th July 2013. The petitions were
filed nearly 3 years later. We would not, therefore,
burden the State exchequer with the arrears till the date
of filing of the petitions. In partial modification of the
impugned common judgment of the learned Single
Judge, it is provided that the petitioners would be
entitled to arrears of salary as per the directions of the
learned Single Judge only from the date of the filing of
the respective petitions and not from any early period.
The modified directions of the learned Single Judge shall
be carried out within a period of 4(four) months from
today."
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
[7] Learned Sr. Counsel contends that the claim of the
appellants is squarely covered by the said common judgment dated
30.11.2017 delivered in WP(C) No.438 of 2016 [Md. Abdul Malik
Vs. State of Tripura and Ors.] which was also upheld by the
appellate court in Writ Appeal by judgment dated 11.02.2020
[Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition] with minor modification.
According to learned counsel of the appellants, the distinction
between the appellants and the petitioners of WP(C) No.438 of
2016 made by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and the
appellants are entitled to the same benefits which have been given
to the petitioners of WP(C) No.438 of 2016 as they are similarly
circumstanced.
[8] Mr.Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl.GA submits that
both the appellants were inducted in service in Madrassa school as
Under Graduate teachers. The benefit of higher pay scale vis a vis
the higher qualification was extended to those incumbents who had
acquired higher qualification on or before 31.12.1991. The
appellants, who obtained graduation degree after 31.132.1991
were not considered for the benefits which were extended to the
petitioners of WP (C) No.438 of 2016 [Md. Abdul Malik Vs. State
of Tripura and Ors.]
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
[9] We have considered the submissions of learned
counsel representing the parties and examined the records
available before us. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the relevant extract of the impugned judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge which reads as under:
"[9] There is no dispute as regards the qualification of the
petitioners that they are graduates of the recognized
universities. From their very appointment, as it is apparent
that they were not entertained against their qualification of
Bachelors Degree. Hence, it is difficult to accept that both
the petitioners are entitled to the benefits alike the
petitioners of Abdul Malik (supra). The petitioners are not
entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs.5300-24000/- PB-II
with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- [pre-revised] from the date of
their appointment under the Grant-in Aid Madrassas. But
the respondents may consider their appointment in the pay
scale of Rs.5300-24000/- PB-II with Grade Pay of
Rs.2400/- [pre-revised] w.e.f. 01.08.2013 having regard to
their qualification. But there is no extant rule based on
which this court may direct the respondents to grant the
similar benefits as extended by the judgment dated
30.11.2020 [Annexure-9 to the writ petitions] and the
judgment dated 11.02.2020 [Annexure-10 to the writ
petitions].
[10] Having taken this view, these writ petitions stand
dismissed. However, the petitioners may file a fresh
representation to the respondents to upgrade their pay
scale to that of the Graduate Teachers considering their
qualification, which is commensurate for appointment as
the Graduate Teachers. They may also make reference to
the nature of job they discharge."
[10] It would appear from the impugned judgment that
learned Single Judge having regard to the qualification of the
appellants viewed that the State-respondents should consider their
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
appointment in the pay-scale of Rs.5300-2400/- with grade-pay of
Rs.2400 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 01.08.2013 but the learned Single
Judge actually declined to grant such benefits to the appellants as
extended to the petitioners of WP(C) 438 of 2016 since there was
no extant rule based on which such direction should be issued. In
WP(C) 438 of 2016, the petitioners were granted regular pay-scale
of Graduate-Teacher on the basis of the finding that even though
they were holding the same status and discharging exactly the
same duties and they were also possessing same or higher
qualification, were not given the same pay-scale and other benefits
which were being given to the similarly situated Madrasa Teachers.
Therefore, the Court held that State cannot make such
unreasonable distinction amongst the persons in the same class
and granted the relief to the petitioners. In writ appeal, the
judgment dated 30.11.2017 rendered in WP(C) 438 of 2016 was
modified to fix the effective date by the learned Single Judge. In
the writ petition, it was ordered that payments of arrears shall be
made from the date of absorption whereas in the writ appeal, it
was held that payment of arrears shall be made from the date of
filing the petitions before the Court. The judgment of the learned
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
Single Judge in WP(C)438 of 2016 was upheld in Writ Appeal
except this modification.
[11] Notification dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure -5 to the Writ
Petition) clearly demonstrates that the present appellants were
graduates when they were brought to the post of Madrassa
Teachers in the Madrassas under the grants in aid scheme.
Undisputedly, the appellants were also holding the same status and
they were discharging exactly the same duties with the petitioners
of WP(C) 438 of 2016. Therefore, evidently, the case of the
petitioners is covered under the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed
in WP(C) 438 of 2016. As such, they are entitled to the same
benefits which have been given to the petitioners of WP(C) 438 of
2016. However, the appellants will get the reliefs from the date of
their filing the writ petitions as modified by judgment and order
dated 11.02.2020 in the writ appeal against the judgment and
order dated 30.11.2017 in WP(C) 438 of 2016.
[12] In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set
aside. The State-respondents are directed to provide same benefits
to the appellants which have been given to the petitioners in WP(C)
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
438 of 2016 w.e.f. the date of their filing the writ petitions and the
compliance be made within a period of 4(four) months from today.
In terms of the above, the appeals stand allowed and
disposed of.
(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY),J (ARINDAM LODH), J
Saikat Sarma
WA 114 of 2022
WA 113 of 2022
