Tripura High Court
Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Tripura on 16 August, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 121/2024
1. Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee, S/O late Bhabatosh Bhattacharjee,
resident of Kailash Dham, Joynagar, Akhaura road, P.O. Agartala-799001,
P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura
2. Sri Sankar Gupta, S/O late Supati Gupta, resident of Sncase royal,
Flat No. 2G, Tower II, Elaichi More 620, S.N. Ghosh Avenue, P.O.
Narendrapur, Kolkata, P.S. Narendrapur, Kolkata, Pin- 700103.
3. Sri Sumit Bhattacharjee, S/O Sri Ashutosh Bhattacharjee, resident
of Old Kalibari Road, Krishnanagar, Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-
799001.
4. Sri Sumendra Das, S/O Sri Jogendra Chandra Das, resident of Town
Pratapgarh, Central Road Extension, Agartala, District- West Tripura, Pin-
799001.
5. Sri Nilanjan Biswas, S/O Sri Anukul Chandra Biswas, resident of
village & P.O. Rajarbag, Udaipur, District- Gomati, Tripura.
6. Sri Dipak Bhowmik, S/O Sri Dhirendra Chandra Bhowmik, resident
of village- Dighalia, P.O. Agartala-799009, P.S. Airport, District- West
Tripura.
..... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary cum
Commissioner, Government of Tripura, Department of Power, P.O.
Kunjaban, P.S. NCC, District- West Tripura, 799001.
2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Department of Power, Government
of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, Gorkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S.
NCC, District- West Tripura, 799001.
3. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, represented by its
Chairman cum Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bidyut Bhavan, North
Banamalipur, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura.
4. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity
Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, Bidyut Bhavan, North Banamalipur,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura.
5. The Deputy General Manager (Corporate), Tripura State
Electricity Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, Bidyut Bhavan, North
Banamalipur, P.O. Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, District- West Tripura.
6. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Finance Department,
Government of Tripura, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District- West Tripura.
----Respondent(s)
Page 2
For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sarkar, Advocate
Mr. K. Deb, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 16.08.2024
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
16/08/2024
Heard Mrs. S. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as Mr. D. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing
for respondents no. 1, 2 and 6, and Mr. K. Deb, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.
2. By means of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners
have prayed for the following reliefs:
"i) Admit this petition of the petitioners and call for records relevant to
the subject matter from the custody of the respondents;
ii) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other
order/orders/direction/directions of like nature whereby directing the
respondents to comply the common judgment and order dated 03.03.2021
passed in WP(C) 488 of 2019, 489/2019, 490/2019, 491/2019, 492/2019,
493/2019, 494/2019, 495/2019, 496/2019, 497/2019 and 498/2019.
iii) Issue Writ directing the respondents to grant 3rd MACP completion of
25 years of continuous satisfactory service respectively as TPES Grade V(A)
Engineering Service with notional fixation as per Revised pay ROP Rules,
2017 read with its Ist amendment Rules, 2018 (Level-14, Cell-20) and
financial benefit with effect from 25.03.2016 as per the common judgment
and order dated 03.03.2021 passed in WP(C) 488 of 2019, 489/2019,
490/2019, 491/2019, 492/2019, 493/2019, 494/2019, 495/2019, 496/2019,
497/2019 and 498/2019.
iv) Issue Writ directing the respondents to grant 3rd MACP completion of
25 years of continuous satisfactory service for the petitioner No.-1 as on
09.09.2017, petitioner No.2 as on 09.09.2017, petitioner No.-3 as on
09.09.2017, petitioner No.-4 as on 15.09.2017,petitioner No.-5 as on
07.07.2017 and petitioner No.-6 as on 08.07.2017 respectively as TPES Grade
V(A) Engineering Service with notional fixation as per Revised pay ROP
Rules, 2017 read with its 1st amendment Rules, 2018 (Level-14, Cell-20) and
financial benefit with effect from 25.03.2016 as per the common judgment
and order dated 03.03.2021 passed in WP(C) 488 of 2019, 489/2019,
490/2019, 491/2019, 492/2019, 493/2019, 494/2019, 495/2019, 496/2019,
497/2019 and 498/2019.
v) Pass such other or further order/orders and directing/directions as to
your Lordship deem fit and proper having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case."
Page 3
3. Mrs. Deb (Gupta), learned counsel for the petitioners have
submitted that the present writ petition is squarely covered by
the judgment and order dated 03.03.2021 passed in W.P(C) 488
of 2019, titled as Sri Kalyanbrata Bhattacharjee vs. State of
Tripura & others (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). Learned
counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the reliefs
claimed for by the present writ petitioners in this writ petition are
also covered by the Order dated 24.02.2023 passed in W.P(C)
993 of 2022, titled as Sri Paritosh Majumder and ors. vs. The
State of Tripura and ors. (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). The
crux of submission of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners is that the petitioners are entitled to 3 rd ACP which is
arbitrarily withheld by the respondents.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for
the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 has submitted that in W.P(C) 488
of 2019 (supra), this court directed the respondents to pay the
2nd ACP to the petitioners which had to be fixed notionally. Mr.
Deb, learned counsel has specifically drawn my attention to a
very significant observation of this court, that "whether the
petitioners are entitled to further upgradation, that will be
determined by ROP Rules, 2017, as the petitioners are not
entitled to 3rd ACP in terms of Rule 10(2) of the ROP Rules,
2009". According to learned counsel for the respondents, this
observation is per se relevant to decide the merits of the writ
petition, on the basis of which he has argued that the petitioners
are not entitled to 3rd ACP.
Page 4
5. I have perused the records and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners as
well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
respondents. In my opinion, this is a fit case to relegate the
matter to the competent authority to consider the various
aspects of granting 3rd ACP to the writ petitioners in the light of
ROP Rules, 2017. Accordingly, the reliefs claimed by the
petitioners are remitted to the respondents for consideration in
accordance with relevant rules and the judgments, referred to by
learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. It is made
clear that the entire process shall be completed within 3 (three)
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. In the light of above, the instant writ petition stands
disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR KAR
Date: 2024.08.21 12:31:53
+05'30'
