Tripura High Court
Priyanki Das And 29 Ors vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 22 August, 2023
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.146 OF 2022
Priyanki Das and 29 ors.
...... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
The State of Tripura and ors.
...... Respondent (s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate.
Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 22.08.2023.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
This present writ petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue notice upon the respondents.
ii. Call for the records.
iii. Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to Show
Cause as to why the petitioners shall not be granted the benefit of MACP-I
from the pay of completion of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory
service counting w.e.f. 26.08.2010 along with all arrears of financial
service.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause
as to why the petitioners shall not be granted the benefit of two annual
increments of the year 2016 & 2017 which were illegally deducted from
the date of the petitioners at the time of pay fixation of the petitioners
after Sangita Reang's Judgment.
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as
to why the Respondents shall not be mandated to pay Rs.5 lakhs to the
petitioners as litigation cost for unnecessary dragging the petitioners into
litigation.
iv. And after hearing the parties be pleased to make the
Rule absolute.
AND/OR.
Pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper."
2. Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S.
Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D.
Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. assisted by Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents.
3. Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners has prayed for granting of MACP benefit to the petitioners
from the date of completion of 10 years of service counting w.e.f.
26.08.2010 along with all arrears of financial benefit. The learned
counsel further prayed for a direction to grant the petitioners 2(two)
annual increments of the year 2016 and 2017 which were deducted from
the petitioners at the time of pay fixation after the Judgment dated
29.01.2020 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.295 of 2019 and other
batch of matters titled as Sangita Reang and others versus State of
Tripura and ors.
4. On the other hand, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A.
appearing for the State-respondents submits that if representation is to
be filed by the petitioners before the respondents, the same is to be filed
individually for proper adjudication of the individual case.
5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on record.
6. This present writ petition is disposed of with a direction
upon the petitioners to file their respective representations and claims
highlighting their entitlement under the Rules claiming their status under
the MACP-I. On receipt of such individual representations, the
respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and
examine whether the petitioners have completed the 10(ten) years of
service as contemplated under the Rules. It is needless to observe that if
there is no ambiguity in the Rules, the said decision can be taken
without reference to the decision of this Court passed in Sangita
Reang(supra) and another decision of this Court dated 25.03.2022
passed in WP(C) No.171 of 2022 titled as Sri Souradip Saha and 17
ors. Vs. The State of Tripura and 3 ors. The respondents shall apply
their minds independently and accordingly take a decision within a
period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of such representations
from the petitioners. The said decision be communicated to the
petitioners by the respondents.
In the event, if the petitioners are aggrieved by any
decision, it amounts to a fresh cause of action and the petitioners are at
liberty to avail remedies under the law. Accordingly, the impugned
memorandum dated 24.12.2021 which is under challenge is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the respondents for fresh
consideration in the light of the representations made by the petitioners.
7. With the above observation and directions, this present
writ petition stands disposed of. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated.
Pending application(s) if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2023.08.25
SINGHA 13:51:52 +05'30'
