Mr. P. Roy Barman vs Mr. D. Bhattacharjee
2022 Latest Caselaw 676 Tri

                                                           Page 1 of 13



                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA
                       WP(C) NO.493 OF 2020


Sri Swapan Kumar Pal,
S/o- Lt Paresh Chandra Pal,
Village East Dukli, P.O.- East Pratapgarh,
P.S. East Agartala, Agartala, Dist-West Tripura,
Pin-799004.
                            Versus
1. State of Tripura,
(To be represented by the Secretary, Department of
Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799006.

2. Tripura Jute Mills Limited,
To be represented by the Managing Director,
Tripura Jute Mills Limited, Hapania, ONGC,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799014.

3. Managing Director,
Tripura Jute Mills Limited, Hapania, ONGC,
Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799014

For the Petitioner(s)       : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
                              Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)       : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.

Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.

Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

Date of hearing             : 12.07.2022.

Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order            : 19/07/2022

Whether fit for reporting   : NO.









        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
                     JUDGMENT & ORDER

Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel

assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A.

assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the

State-respondent and Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel

appearing for respondents-Tripura Jute Mills.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the

petitioner has sought for necessary direction from the

respondents for giving the petitioner benefit of pay revision

w.e.f. 01.01.1996 like other similarly situated Officers of

Tripura Jute Mills Limited („TJML' in short) in terms of

direction given by the Hon‟ble High Court vide Judgment

dated 08.04.2011, passed in W.A. No.74 of 2003 which has

been subsequently affirmed by the Apex Court.

3. TJML is a Government of Tripura undertaking

and in the 138th meeting of the BOD of the TJML held on

10.06.1998 vide resolution No.11, under the miscellaneous

head, two posts of Accounts Officer were created. For filling

up those two posts, it was also revealed that management

trainee would be appointed through selection for one year

so, that after completion of training, the posts of Accounts

Officer would be duly filled up by the trainees. In pursuance

of the resolution adopted at the 138 meeting of BOD, TJML,

the Managing Director, TJML, vide Advertisement

No.TJ/FI(49)/I/98-99 published in a local daily newspaper,

on 29.07.1998 invited applications from the eligible

candidates for appointment as Management Trainees. The

petitioner offered his candidature for the post of

Management Trainee, as the petitioner had the requisite

education qualification & experience for the said post.

Thereafter, through a fair & transparent selection process,

the petitioner was selected for the post of Management

Trainee (Account) of TJML, through the interview from

those who have offered their candidature for the said post.

4. In pursuant to the aforesaid resolution

adopted by the 138th Meeting of the BOD of TJML, through

selection vide Memo, No.TJ/MD(3)/Vol-III/28, dated

10.04.2000, issued by the Managing Director, TJML, the

petitioner through proper and fair selection was engaged as

Management Trainee(Accounts).

5. In terms of the resolution of the 138th BOD

meeting the Management Trainee (Accounts) would be

required to successfully complete one-year training and

thereafter he would be regularly appointed in the post of

Accounts Officer. After successful completion of one year as

a Management Trainee, the petitioner became entitled to be

regularized in the post of Accounts Officer. However, that

was not done through the petitioner has been submitting

one after another representation for regularization of his

service in the post of Accounts Officer. Instead of

regularising the service of the petitioner vide Memo dated,

04.10.2001, issued by the Managing Director, TJML, the

engagement of the petitioner as Management

Trainee(Accounts) was extended until further order. By

memorandum No.TJ/SECY(1)/VOL-VI/303 dated

09.09.2004, issued by the Managing Director, TJML, the

petitioner was designated as in-Charge Accounts Officer

(Bill Drawing & Disbursement Selections, etc.), and the

petitioner was directed to work as Officer-in-charge Bill

Section, DDO Section, Audit Section, etc. Ultimately by

Memorandum dated 25.09.2013 issued by MD, TJML, the

service of the petitioner was regularized in the post of

Accounts Officer w.e.f. 01.09.2013 in the pay scale of

Rs.16,200/-31,320/- with other allowances and benefits

applicable to TJML. The petitioner joined the post of

Accounts Officer in pursuance of the Memorandum dated

25.09.2013. But the petitioner expressed his grievance for

not regularising his service in the post of Accounts Officer

as soon as he completed training.

6. The petitioner submitted many

representations to the MD, TJML seeking his regularisation

in the posts of Accounts Officer w.e.f. 11.04.2001. But the

petitioner did not get any response. The petitioner also

sought for benefit of the pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

Thereafter, as the representations failed to yield any

response, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated

04.02.2017 to the Managing Director, TJML. By the said

legal notice, the petitioner demanded that he should be

given the benefit of regularisation in the posts of Accounts

Officer w.e.f. 11.04.2001 and other benefits in due

compliance with the judgment and order dated 08.04.2011

passed by the Hon‟ble High Court in W.A. No.74 of 2003

which has been affirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.

7. As there was no response from the MD, TJML,

to the legal notice dated 04.02.2017, the petitioner filed

WP(C) No.266 of 2017 seeking relief. Thereafter, this Court

vide order dated 13.08.2018, disposed of the said writ

petition and declined to grant the relief to the petitioner.

Then, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No.78/2018

against the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the learned

Single Judge in WP(C) No.266 of 2017. By order dated

20.02.2019, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of

the said WA No.78/2018 in the following terms:-

" (a) On a limited issue referred to supra, the petitioner shall approach the authorities. Upon receipt of any representation, the petitioner/appellant's case shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, within a period of five months thereafter.

(b) Liberty reserved to the petitioner/appellant to approach the Court on the same and subsequent cause of action, if occasion arises subsequently."

8. Thereafter, the petitioner in due compliance with

the direction given by this Court vide order dated

20.02.2019, submitted a detailed representation dated

20.03.2019 to the Managing Director, TJML, seeking the

benefit of pay revision of 2019 following the judgment of

the Hon‟ble High Court passed in W.A. No.74 of 2003 dated

08.04.2011 as affirmed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

Tripura Jute Mills Officers Association Vs. State of

Tripura and other vide SLP No.20837/2011. The

petitioner specifically sought for the benefit of revision of

pay as per ROP Rules 1999 as given to other officers of

TJML.

9.                    The       Addl.        Director,   Industries       and

Commence,             Government        of    Tripura,   by   letter,   dated

06.06.2019 communicated to the Managing Director, TJML

the view of the Law Department concerning the

representation submitted by the petitioner seeking the

benefit of the regular scale of pay of Accounts Officer w.e.f.

09.09.2004 and benefit of 4th Tripura Pay Commission

effective from 01.01.1996 following the judgment passed

on 08.04.2011 in W.A. No.74 of 2003. After incorporating

the view of the Law Department in the aforesaid letter, the

Addl. Director, Industries and Commerce, ask the MD, TJML

to examine and scrutinize the limited issue of the benefit of

pay revision to the petitioner based on the Judgment

passed in W.A. No.74/2003, dated 08.04.2011, read with

the Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Civil Appeal No.10411 of 2016. By the said letter, it was

also pointed out, that, entitlement of the petitioner in

regularized post shall be w.e.f. 01.09.2013.

10. The chairman cum Managing Director, TJML

vide Memo dated, 27.06.2019, in pursuance to the letter,

dated 25.06.2019, issued by the Addl. Director, Industries

and Commerce, constituted a committee for assessing the

monetary involvement for the proposed release of pay

revision benefit including all other admissible benefits in

favour of the petitioner-Swapan Kr. Paul, Accounts Officer,

TJML w.e.f. 01.09.2013 at par with the employees of the

other PSUs of the State Government in accordance with the

Tripura Civil Services (Revision Pay) 6th Amendment Rules,

2012, (Revised Pay) 12th amendment Rules, 2015, Tripura

State Pay Matrix 2017 and Tripura State Pay Matrix 2018.

The committee so formed was directed to submit the report

within 7 days.

11. The Addl. Director, Industries and Commerce

vide letter, dated 26.08.2019, communicated to the

Managing Director, TJML to inform him of the views of the

Finance Department to the effect that the petitioner is not

entitled to the benefit of the Judgment passed on

08.04.2011 in W.A. No.74/2003 on the ground that, the

petitioner was never a member of the „Tripura Jute Mills

Officers Association‟.

12. The petitioner submitted a reminder to his

earlier representation dated 16.03.2019 to the Managing

Director, TJML to give him the benefit of pay revision

following the Judgment and order, dated 08.04.2011,

passed by this Court in W.A. No.74/2003.

13. Under the circumstances stated above, the

writ petitioner filed this instant writ petition and prayed for

the following reliefs:-

"i. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions to like nature shall not be issued whereby to directing the Respondents to give the benefit of pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2996 and others benefits in due compliance with the Judgment and Order, dated, 08.04.2011 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court in W.A. No.74/2003, which has been confirmed by the Apex Court by Judgment dated 25.10.2016.

ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby quashing the letter, dated, 26.08.2019 issued by the Addl. Director (I&C), Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura.

iii. Make the rules absolute.

iv. Call for records.

v. Pas any further order/orders as this Hon‟ble High Court considered fit and proper."

14. Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel

submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of pay

revision w.e.f. 01.09.2013 i.e. the date on which the

petitioner was regularized in the post of Accounts Officer.

Only on the ground that the petitioner‟s name was not

included in the list of members given by the Secretary

TJML, the petitioner is suffering continuously as the

petitioner is being denied the benefit of pay revision and the

other benefits in terms of the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in W.A. No.74 of

2003 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Officers

and Supervisors of the TJML have been given the benefit of

pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and allowances in terms of

the Officers and Supervisors of other PSUs and State

Government. The petitioner is squarely covered by the said

judgment and on flimsy ground, the petitioner's name is not

included.

15. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing

for the State-respondents has opposed the said submission

of the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and

prayed to dismiss the instant writ petition. Learned G.A.

submits that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of

the order of the Hon‟ble High Court in W.A No.74 of 2003

read with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in C.A. No.10411/16 since the petitioner is not a member of

the TJML Officers Association and if at all he wants to take

the advantage of the order, he has to implead the

association and the members of the association as the party

since they will be effected in the process of determining

their services. Learned G.A further submits that order dated

26.08.2019 is an internal correspondence and the same is

not marked to the petitioner herein. Learned G.A. also

submits that the respondents are actively considering the

cases wherever they need to be adjudicated.

16. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for

respondents No.2 & 3 while adopting the arguments of the

learned Government Advocate has prayed to dismiss the

writ petition.

17. Heard both sides at length and perused the

evidence on record.

18. In so far as the relief claimed by the

petitioner is concerned, the 2(two) internal correspondences

dated 25.06.2019 & 10.08.2019 between the Managing

Director, Tripura Jute Mills Limited and Addl. Director

Industries & Commerce and correspondence between The

Director, Department of Industries & Commerce and

Chairman-cum-Managing Director appears to be in favour of

the petitioner. But the impugned order dated 26.08.2019

has not considered the case of the petitioner and has not

given any cogent reasons. Hence, the impugned order

dated 26.08.2019 is set aside and remanded back to the

concerned respondents to look into the matter. In the light

of the correspondences dated 25.06.2019 and 10.08.2019,

the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner

and pass a reasoned order and the same is to be

communicated to the petitioner. This exercise shall be

completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date

of receipt of the copy of this order.

19. With the above observation and directions,

this instant writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently,

pending application(s), if any, stands closed.

JUDGE

suhanjit