Tripura High Court
Smt. Smita Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 20 August, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 529/2024
1. Smt. Smita Debbarma, W/O Sri Sanjeeb Sinha, resident of
Krishnanagar, Thakur Palli road, Opposite Satsanga Ashram, P.O. Agartala-
799001, P.S.- West Agartala, District- West Tripura.
..... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, School
Education Department, Government of Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New
Capital Complex, District- West Tripura, Pin- 799010.
2. The Director of Secondary Education, Directorate of Secondary
Education, School Education Department, Government of Tripura, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura, 799001.
3. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department Government of
Tripura, P.O. Secretariat, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura,
Pin- 799010.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, GA
Date of hearing & delivery
of judgment : 20.08.2024
Whether fit for reporting : No
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (Oral)
16/08/2024
Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for
respondents-State.
2. By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioners have
prayed for 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
Petitioner shall not be given the benefit of one increment as per Rule
13(1)(ii) of the Tripura States Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009
alongwith arrears of financial benefit.
Page 2
AND
Issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the
memorandum dated 6th July, 2011 issued by the Finance Department,
Government of Tripura shall not be set aside and quashed.
AND
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 19thMarch, 2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.
703/2019 by this Hon'ble High Court as upheld by the Ld. Division
Bench in W.A. No.207/2021 (Annexure 6 and 7 to the writ petition).
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule absolute."
3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Graduate Teacher on
16.01.2024. Thereafter, she was on fixed pay for a period of 5(five) years of
her service. On completion of 5(five) years on fixed pay, the petitioner was
given the benefit of regular pay scale. At the time of her initial appointment
as Graduate Teacher, the petitioner had been possessing the degree of B.Ed.
which was a qualification higher than the entry level qualification for the
post in question. It is the grievance of the petitioner that having entered into
service as Post Graduate Teacher with B.Ed. degree, her service became
covered under Rule 13(1)(ii) of the Tripura States Civil Services (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2009, and accordingly, she is entitled to one advance increment,
which was most illegally and arbitrarily denied to her. Hence, the present
writ petition.
4. At the very outset, Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the present writ petition is well covered by the judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge (A. Kureshi, CJ, as he then was) of this
Court dated 19.03.2021 passed in WP(C) No.703 of 2019 titled as Sri
Kamanashis Das & Ors. vs. The State of Tripura & Ors. Against the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the State has preferred an
appeal which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.
No.207 of 2021, titled as State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Kamanashis Das &
Page 3
Ors. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for disposing the present writ
petition in terms of the directions passed in Kamanashis Das(supra).
5. This proposition has not been opposed by learned GA appearing for
the respondents-State.
6. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single
Judge in Kamanashis Das(supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment
may be reproduced here-in-below:
"16. In the result, it is provided that all the petitioners would be entitled
to one advance increment in terms of Rule 13(1)(ii) of ROP 2009 from
the respective dates when they were brought over to regular pay scales.
This pay fixation would, however, be for notional purpose till the date of
filing of the petition after which they would be entitled to arrears of
salary. These directions shall be carried out within a period of 4(four)
months from today. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."
7. Since the factual aspects of the present writ petition is similar and
identical to the subject matter of the case of Kamanashis Das(supra), the
present writ petition is also, therefore, allowed and disposed of in the same
terms.
8. The respondents are directed to pay one advance increment and other
financial benefits in line with the directions given in Kamanashis
Das(supra). The entire process shall be completed within a period of 4(four)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observation and directions, the instant writ petition
stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR Date: 2024.08.21 12:52:20
