Tripura High Court
Smt. Sudipa Debnath And 3 Ors vs The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors on 12 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 651 of 2023
Smt. Sudipa Debnath and 3 Ors.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl.GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Order
12.10.2023
Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also
heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the state-
respondents.
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking 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 given the benefit of one increment as
per Rule 13(1) (ii) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2009 alongwith arrears of financial benefit.
And
Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why
memorandum dated 6th July, 2021 issued by the Finance
Department, Government of Tripura shall not be set aside and
quashed.
Issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why
the petitioners shall not be granted all financial benefits as per the
judgment and order dated 19th March, 2021 passed WP(C) 703 of
2019 by this Hon'ble High Court as upheld by the Ld. Division
Bench in WA 207 of 2021 as well as judgment and order dated
23.11.2022 passed in WP(C) 469 of 2021 and the judgment and
order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Review petition no.24 of 2023.
After hearing the parties, being satisfied, make the rule in terms of
(iv) and (v) absolute.
(iv) And after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule
absolute.
And/or
(v) Pass and other order/orders as deemed fit and proper by this
Hon'ble Court.
The brief facts of the petitioners is that the petitioners
have urged this court for directing the respondent to grant one
increment in favour of the petitioners for the B.Ed training undergone
by the petitioners prior to entry into the service as per Rule 12(1)(ii) of
the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. The
petitioners further seek a writ of certiorari for setting aside the
memorandum dated 6th July, 2011 issued by the Finance Department,
Government of Tripura whereby a decision has been taken to provide
lumpsum benefit to the petitioners in lieu of increment under Rule
12(1)(ii) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009
on the ground that the petitioners were on fixed pay for a period of 5
years after entry into service. The petitioners further raised grievance
regarding violation of Rule 13(1)(ii) of the Tripura State Civil Services
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2009. Thereafter, the selection and appointment
of the petitioners was set aside by the Ld. Division Bench of this Court
in WP(C) 51 of 2014 titled in Tanmoy Nath versus The State of
Tripura. While setting aside the selection and appointment the Hon'ble
High Court had however are being set aside get appointed in the fresh
selection process, they will be entitled to get their service counted for
all purpose. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court was challenged
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the State of Tripura but
the judgment passed by this Court was upheld with some
modifications. The Finance Department, Government of Tripura issued
a memorandum on 6th July, 2011 whereby it was provided that the
fixed pay employees do not come under the purview of revision of pay
rules and therefore the teachers who completed the B.Ed prior to entry
into service are entitled to lump sum benefit and not the increment as
provided under the Rules. The said memorandum dated 6 th July, 2011
is contrary to the rules of 2009 as Rule 13(1)(ii) of the Rules of 2009
clearly provides that a teacher entering into service with B.Ed/UGBT
training are entitled to one increment.
It is seen from the record, that the petitioners made a
representation dated 27.09.2023 to the official respondents to grant
the petitioners increment under Rule 13(1)(ii) of TSCS(RP) Rules,
2009. According to the respondents, the respondents have not acted
upon such representation till date.
Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the
petitioners have approached this Court for seeking reliefs.
In view of said submission, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, this present writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in
accordance with law in the light of the representation dated
27.09.2023 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
DIPAK Digitally signed by
DIPAK DAS
DAS Date: 2023.10.13
16:40:19 +05'30'
