Present vs .
2023 Latest Caselaw 221 Tri

                                     Page 1 of 3


                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                            WP(C) NO.786 OF 2022

   Md. Ershad Ulla and ors.
   Vs.
   The State of Tripura and ors.

              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

   Present:
   For the Petitioner(s)                 : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.
                                           Mr. K. Chakraborty, Advocate.

   For the Respondent(s)                 : Mr. M. Saha, Advocate.

Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.

17.03.2023

Order

The fact of this instant writ petition is that the petitioners

are serving in the post of Junior Electricians, in the TSECL. Praying

fixation of their pays in parity with the reference posts of Junior

Surveyor/Junior Draftsman, as per the relevant Revision of Pay

Rules, the petitioners had filed a batch of Writ Petitions. By a

Judgment & Order dated 12.05.2020, passed by this Court, the

same were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners had

preferred Intra-Court Appeals there against, and by an order dated

15.03.2021, the Division Bench of this Court held that that said

Judgment and order dated 12.05.2020, as passed by the learned

Single Judge does not survive, and permitted the petitioners to

submit representation to the appropriate authority. In tune

therewith, the petitioners submitted representations to the

respondents thereby elaborately expressing their grievance, and

raising their genuine claims vis-à-vis fixation of their pay, in parity

with the persons, serving in the posts of Junior Surveyor/Junior

Draftsman, and further enclosed their relevant qualification

certificates, but the same did not evoke any response.

Hence the petitioners filed this instant writ petition praying

for the following reliefs:-

" i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them to fix the pay of the petitioners, in the pay scale of Rs.4,200-8,650/- as per the Tripura State Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, with effect from 01.01.1996.

ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them to fix the pay of the petitioners, in the pay scale of Rs.5,310-24,000/- along with Grade Pay of Rs.2,100/-(subsequently0 modified to Rs.5,700-24,000/- alogn Grade Pay of Rs.2,800/-) as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009, with effect from 01.01.2006.

iii) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them to fix the pay of the Petitioners, in the basic pay of Rs.30,320/-(Pay Matrix Level

9), as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2007, with effect from 01.04.2017;

iv) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them to grant all the consequential benefits flowing thereform along with arrears thereof;

v) Call for the records, appertaining to this Writ Petition.

vi) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rules absolute in terms of (i) and (iv) above;

vii) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding. Viii) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;"

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

Mr. K. Chakrabaorty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,

and Mr. M. Saha, learned counsel as well as Mr. D.C. Saha, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.

Respondent No.4 herein has received the representations

of the petitioners which have been filed through proper channel and

other respondents in this writ petition were also sensitized about the

grievance of the petitioners. This Court opines that the respondents

have not taken the grievance of the petitioners in the right manner

and have not acted upon though it is more than a year. This Court

expresses its concern in the manner in which the respondents are

showing their concern towards their subordinate employees. This

Court is not inclined to accept the lethargic approach against its

employees by the respondents herein.

In view of the same, this Court directs respondent No.4 to

resolve the grievances of the petitioners herein within a period of

4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

With the above observation and direction, this instant writ

petition stands disposed of. Stay if any stands vacated, pending

application(s), if any also stands closed.

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

suhanjit