Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Ors vs Sri Kiranmoy Bhowmik And Anr on 6 September, 2022
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet No.40 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.................... petitioner(s)
Sri Kiranmoy Bhowmik and Anr.
.................... respondent(s)
Review Pet No.41 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.................... petitioner(s)
Sri Rabi Sankar Choudhury and Anr.
.................... respondent(s)
Review Pet No.42 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.................... petitioner(s)
Sri Surajit Das and Anr.
.................... respondent(s)
Review Pet No.43 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.................... petitioner(s)
Sri Prabir Bhattacharjee and Anr.
.................... respondent(s)
Review Pet No.44 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.................... petitioner(s)
Sri Bir Kumar Biswas and Anr.
.................... respondent(s)
Review Pet No.45 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors.
.................... petitioner(s)
Sri Alok Kumar Chakraborty and Anr.
.................... respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. GA.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
_O_R_D_E_R_
06/09/2022
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-State.
Review of the common judgment & order dated 16.03.2022
passed in a batch of writ petitions vide WP(C) No.251/2018 and other
connected matters has been sought on the ground that the judgment has not
made any stipulation for the period for which benefits shall be made
available. In this regard, review petition has been filed on the basis of
referring to various directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this
issue.
We are of the considered view that the issue raised by the
review petitioners does not arise for consideration in light of the judgment &
order pronounced by this Court impugned before us. This Court disposed of
the batch of writ petitions with the following directions:
"14. After noting the aforesaid, we refrain from granting the relief
sought for by the petitioners regarding the challenge to notification
dated 23.07.2013 issued by the State of Tripura. However, with the
hope that the administration will find sufficient reason to exercise its
power under Rule 19 and 20 of the Tripura State Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 to relax the requirements due to clear undue
hardship that has occurred in this case and use its power of
interpretation under Rule 20 or carry out retrospective amendment to
the rules wherever considered necessary in order to ensure that such
anomaly that has arisen in the present case does not arise. We are
clearly of the considered view that the petitioners who are working as
Superintendent of Fisheries which is admittedly a promotional post
have to be given a salary or a Grade Pay higher than that what is given
to the juniors as Fishery Officers.
We hope and trust that the needful be done within a period of
three months and whatever are the dues of the petitioners shall be paid
within a further period of two months thereafter."
The directions do not contain any specific order regarding the
period for which the writ petitioners may be entitled to back wages.
Consequently, we are of the considered view that the issue
raised by the review petitioners does not arise for our consideration.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands dismissed.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Deepshikha
