Tripura High Court
Sri Sankar Debbarma And 3 Ors vs The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors on 22 January, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.696 of 2023
Sri Sankar Debbarma and 3 Ors.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
....Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
22/01/2024
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 Petitioners 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.
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 19 th March, 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 as well as
judgment and order dated 23.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C)
No.469/2021 and the judgment and order dated 31.07.2023
passed in Review Petition No.24 of 2023.
AND
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the rule
absolute."
2. Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for
the respondents-State.
3. Briefly stated, the petitioners were appointed as Post Graduate
Teachers on different dates. As per the Government policy, they were
granted fixed pay for the initial 5(five) years of their service. On completion
of 5(five) years on fixed pay, the petitioners were given the benefit of regular
pay scales. At the time of their initial appointment as Post Graduate
Teachers, the petitioners had 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 petitioners that having entered into service as Teachers with
B.Ed. degree, they were covered under Rule 13(1)(ii) of the Tripura States
Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 and accordingly, they are entitled
to one advance increment, which was denied to them. Hence, the present writ
petition.
4. At the very outset, Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel for the
petitioners 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 WA
No.207 of 2021, titled as State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Kamanashis Das &
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 Addl. GA
appearing for the respondents.
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).
9. The entire process shall be completed within a period of 4(four)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. With the above observation and directions, the instant writ
petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
Snigdha
SANJAY Digitally signed by
SANJAY GHOSH
GHOSH 17:21:36 +05'30'
Date: 2024.01.25
