Tripura High Court
Sri Ramapati Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 29 April, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA NO.08 OF 2024
Sri Ramapati Chakraborty.
...... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and ors.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P.L. Debbarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 29.04.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
(T. AMARNATH GOUD,J)
This present writ appeal has been filed against the
impugned Order dated 04.10.2024 passed in WP(C) No.394 of 2024
by the learned Single Judge.
2. The case of the petitioner is that since 2006, he has
been working on a contractual basis from year to year. His
employer is the Director of the Education Department SCERT, and
he was appointed on a fixed scale of Rs.4,000/-, which has
subsequently been enhanced, along with extensions of his service.
Presently, when the litigation started in 2022, his scale was
Rs.27,711/-, and that amount has since been enhanced. The nature
of the petitioner's work is as a Cameraman. The petitioner
compares himself to Sri Kalyan Kishore Saha, a Technical Assistant,
and submits before this Court that he is being paid as a computer
personnel at Rs.53,800/-, asserting parity and alleging
discrimination. Accordingly, he seeks fixation of his salary on par
with the Sri Kalyan Kishore Saha.
3. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Mr. P.L. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A.
appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Deb, learned Senior Counsel, draws the
attention of this Court to some official documents of the
Department which equate the post of the appellant herein with that
of Sri Kalyan Kishore Saha, and argues that a similar scale should
be granted. He urges that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge be interfered with and the writ appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned G.A., along with
Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Additional G.A., submits before this Court
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2023) 10
SCC 807 titled as Mahadeo and Ors. vs. Sovan Devi and Ors.,
observed that inter-departmental communication during the process
of consideration for an appropriate decision cannot be relied upon
as a basis to claim any right.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on
record.
7. It is seen from the record that Sri Kalyan Kishore
Saha, a Technical Assistant, was appointed by the State Project
Director, Samagra Shiksha, Tripura, which is a scheme under the
Education Department. Its functioning is altogether different.
8. Mr. Somik Deb, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant, made an attempt to draw the attention of this
Court to documents placed on record which are office notes of the
concerned Departments. However, only selected pages have been
filed, and it is not possible for this Court to take cognizance of the
office notes of the concerned Department, though the same were
obtained by certified copy under the RTI Act and placed on record.
It is needless to observe that, under the writ of mandamus, the
impugned orders and any counter affidavits filed by the concerned
respondents in support of their claim need to be considered.
However, office notes of the respondent-Department carry no
weightage. The same principle is supported by the Judgement of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo and Ors. vs. Sovan Devi
and Ors(supra).
9. Insofar as the pay fixation chart, which is the
revised monthly remuneration of 2013, is concerned, it indicates the
pay fixation for up to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 15 years, and so
on. That pertains to employees who are appointed under the State
Project Director, Samagra Shiksha, whereas. the petitioner is under
the Director of Education of SCERT. As seen from the impugned
proceedings under challenge, categorical averments were made on
22.04.2024 by the respondents, submitting that the posts are
entirely dissimilar and have different remuneration from the
beginning.
10. In view of the same, this Court finds that there is
no discrimination. Accordingly, the contentions of the appellant are
rejected, and the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed
by the Hon'ble Single Judge is also found to be well-reasoned and is
not interfered with.
11. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
B. PALIT, J T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR
SUHANJIT SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2025.04.30
SINGHA 14:54:48 +05'30'
