Tripura High Court
Sri Pinaki Samanta vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 7 August, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.30 of 2023
Sri Pinaki Samanta
......... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
WA No.53 of 2023
The State of Tripura and others
......... Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sri Pinaki Samanta and another
...... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
_O_R_D_E_R_
07/08/2023
By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge
has granted relief in favour of the writ petitioner of stepping-up of pay to
pay scale of Rs.10,000-15,100/- w.e.f. 28.03.2000, i.e. the date when the
said pay scale was given to the proforma-respondent. Petitioner has been
held entitled to all financial benefits under ROP Rules, 1999 and subsequent
revisions under Pay Rules, to be fixed notionally with monetary benefits till
the date prior to 1 (one) year of the date of filing of the writ petition.
The respondents-State has laid challenge to the impugned
judgment in its entirety.
The writ petitioner has laid a challenge only to the extent that
the impugned judgment limits the financial benefits to only one year prior to
the date of filing of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for both the respondents-State and the writ
petitioner have made opening submissions.
Upon hearing them and after going through the record, it
appears that the issue raised by the writ petitioner hinges upon interpretation
of Rule 9.A. and Annexure-B of the ROP Rules, 1999.
As the facts disclose, petitioner is a direct recruit of the year
1998 in TPS Grade-II at the initial entry level pay scale of Rs.7800-15100/-,
whereas the private respondent got promoted to TPS Grade-II on 28.03.2000
and his pay scale was fixed as Rs.10000-15100/-. Rule 9 dealing with
Stepping-up of pay reads as under:
"9. Stepping Up of Pay:
A. In case of pay of an employee was stepped up on or after
01-01-1996 either with the approval of the Finance Department or by the
Department as per the existing orders of the Government, validity of
such stepping up of pay will depend on the actual necessity while fixing
up of pay in the revised scale of both senior and junior employees in the
same cadre. In such cases, if the revised pay of both senior employee
(without stepping up) is same or more as that of junior employee in the
revised scale, the benefit of stepping up will not be admissible. However,
if the revised pay of senior (without stepping up) is lower than that of
junior employee, the pay of senior employee will be stepped up to an
amount equal to the pay fixed for the junior employee in revised scale of
pay from the date the stepping up was permitted in the existing scale with
the approval of the Finance Department or by the Department as per
existing order of the Government.
In cases, where a senior Government servant promoted to a
higher post before the 1st day of January, 1996, draws less pay in the
revised scale than his junior who is promoted to the higher post on or
after the 1st day of January, 1996, the pay of the senior Government
servant should be steeped up to an amount equal to the pay as fixed for
his junior in that higher post. The stepping up should be done with effect
from the date of promotion of the junior Government servant subject to
the fulfillment of the following conditions namely:-
(a) Both the junior and the senior Government servants
should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been
promoted should be identical in the same cadre.
(b) The pre-revised and revised scales of pay of the lower
and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw pay should be
identical.
(c) The senior Government servants at the time of
promotion have been drawing equal or more pay than the junior.
(d) The anomaly should be directly as a result of the
application of the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22 or any other rule or
order regulating pay fixation on such promotion in the revised scale.
(e) However, if even in the lower post, the junior officer
was drawing more pay in the pre-revised scale than the senior by virtue
of any advance increments granted to him or because of larger length of
service or otherwise, this provision need not be invoked to step up the
pay of the senior officer.
Clarification:- Seniority of Government servants for the
purpose of stepping up their pay or fixing the date of increments with
reference to the pay or the date of increments of their juniors as
envisaged in the above mentioned rules may be determined with
reference to the seniority rosters maintained for the purpose of
confirmation/promotion, etc."
As per Rule 10(d), the employees of Cadre service will have
scale advancement as prescribed in the Annexure-B effective from
01.01.1999. The relevant part of Annexure-B dealing with Tripura Police
Service is also quoted hereunder:
Grade
Existing Scale w.e.f. Scale w.e.f. 1-
Scale w.e.f. Remarks Pay fixation
Grade 1-1-96 1-99
1-1-99
9. Tripura Police Service
II 2100-3000 7800-15100 II 7800-15100 Entry for
direct recruits.
He will move
to CAS 1 after
4 years of
service.
(SL) 3000-5000 10000-15100 CAS1 10000-15100 CAS for 22(a)(i) for
direct recruits direct recruit
and entry for and 22(C) for
promotee. promotee
I 3500-5700 11150-18275 1 11150-18275 On promotion 22(C)
As such, the interplay of Rule 9.A with the pay scale provided
for Tripura Police Service in TPS Grade-II are called into question.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that Rule
9.A will not be applicable to the case of the writ petitioner as both the
incumbents are from two different sources, one direct recruit, the other
promotee. Therefore, Annexure-B which provides the scale of pay for direct
recruits and promotees would have application to the case of the petitioner.
The legal issue raised herein is important as it has wide
repercussions for the incumbents of the services under the State. As such,
learned counsel for the State and the writ petitioner both are allowed time to
frame their legal propositions and come fully prepared. They would submit
their written notes at least three days' in advance before the next date of
hearing.
Accordingly, let the matter be listed on 04.09.2023.
(T. AMARNATH GOUD), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Rudradeep RUDRADEEP Digitally signed by RUDRADEEP
BANERJEE
BANERJEE Date: 2023.08.09 11:39:15 +05'30'
