Tripura High Court
Kalu Das And Ors vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 14 August, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.712 OF 2023
Kalu Das and ors.
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and ors.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 14.08.2024.
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This present writ petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking 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 revoke/rescind the impugned
Memoranda, each dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-8 supra), insofar
as the same relate to the erroneous fixations of pay, made in
connection with the benefits of ACP-II & MACP-III;
(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
re-fix the benefit of ACP-II (w.e.f. from the date of completion of
total 17 years of service), in the scale of PB-4 (Rs. 13,575-
37,000/-) with Grade Pay-Rs.4,500/- (revised pay scale of Rs.
10,000-15,100/-), instead of, PB-4 (Rs.13,575-37,000/-) with
Grade Pay-Rs.3,700/- (revised pay scale of Rs.7,800-15,100/-),
as granted earlier on account of the benefit of ACP-II, vide the
impugned Memoranda, each dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-8
supra), and thereupon, to re-fix the subsequent financial up-
gradation of MACP-III (w.e.f. from the date of completion of total
25 years of service), in terms of the said enhanced re-fixation of
ACP-II, alongwith arrears thereof, in favour of the Petitioners;
(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
designate the existing posts, held by the Petitioners as Junior
Engineer (Mechanical) Grade-1 (with effect from the date of
completion of 4 years of service/grant of the benefit of CAS-I), in
terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules, the Finance
Department's Memoranda dated 02.03.1991 & 12.09.1991 and the
Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 17.07.2013, passed in WP(C)
No.17 of 2008, by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble High
Court (Annexures-3, 4, 5 & 6 respectively supra);
(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
declare the posts, held by the Petitioners as Group-B, Gazetted, in
terms of the Notification dated 23.09.2016 (Annexure-9 supra);
(v) 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
include the names of the Petitioners in the common Seniority List
of Diploma Holder Junior Engineers (Mechanical), Department of
Agriculture, Government of Tripura;
(vi) 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
disburse the present pay & allowances of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3
(i.e., Sri Mukul Debbarma & Sri Susanta Deb Barma respectively),
in the modified pay structure (as granted consequent upon the
fixation of the benefits of CAS-I, ACP-11 & MACP-III), as indicated
in the impugned Memoranda, each dated 29.09.2022 (Annexure-8
supra), along with arrears accrued till date, due to non-grant of
such pay & allowances;
(vii) Petition; Call for the records, appertaining to this Writ
(viii) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule
absolute in terms of (i) to (vi) above;
(ix) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding
(x) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit
and proper;"
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are entitled to
the benefits as stated in the prayer and accordingly they filed
separate representations dated 10.10.2023 before the respondent
No.3. But the same were not considered. Pending the same, the
present writ petition is filed. The counter affidavit has also been
filed by the respondents.
3. Heard Mr. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners as well as Mr.Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned
G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and perused the evidence
on record.
4. Since there is no order passed upon the request of the
petitioners, this Court without expressing any opinion on its merit,
directs the respondents to consider the representations dated
10.10.2023 submitted by the petitioners within a period of 3(three)
months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. The said
decision be communicated by the respondents to the petitioners
herein.
5. With the above observation and direction, this present
writ petition is 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: 2024.08.16 16:59:21
SINGHA +05'30'
