Tripura High Court
Sri Bimal Kanti Debnath vs The State Of Tripura on 9 April, 2025
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.188 of 2024
Sri Bimal Kanti Debnath,
S/o Late Makhan Chandra Debnath,
(Aged about 54 years), Resident of Ramnagar Road No.8,
Sarada Palli, P.O. Ramnagar, P.S. West Agartala, Sub-Division-
Agartala, District- West Triprua, PIN- 799002.
........Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Secretary, Public Works Department,
Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S.
New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Finance, Government of Tripura, New Capital
Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West
Tripura, PIN- 799010.
3. The Deputy Secretary,
Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, New
Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District- West Tripura, PIN- 799010.
4. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, Netaji
Chowmuhani, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District- West
Tripura, PIN-799001.
........ Respondent(s)
5. Sri Shibu Deb,
Son of Motilal Deb, Work Assistant, Office of Assistant Engineer,
Central-VIII Sub-Division, A.D. Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- A.D. Nagar,
Agartala, District- West Tripura.
........ Proforma Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate.
Mr. Subham Majumder, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery : 9th April, 2025.
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, now respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Daily Rated
Worker (for short, DRW) on 08.08.1988 under the official respondents
and at that time, his educational qualification was Madhyamik plucked.
However, while serving as DRW, he passed Madhyamik examination in
the year 1994 and in the year 1996, he also passed HS (+2 stage)
examination and finally, in the year 1999, he passed B.A. from Tripura
University. Thereafter, as alleged by the petitioner, with the concurrence
of the Finance Department, the services of 343 numbers of
DRWs/Casual/Contingent workers including the petitioner serving under
the Public Works Department (for short, PWD) were proposed to be
regularized and the service of the petitioner was proposed to be
regularized against Group-C post with mentioning of academic
qualification to be B.A. passed, but vide office order dated 16.04.2008,
his service was regularized against the post of Peon. Initially, in the said
office order, the name of the petitioner was wrongly written as 'Bimal
Kanti Majumder' which was later on corrected vide a corrigendum dated
19.04.2008, as 'Bimal Kanti Debnath'. Thereafter, according to the
petitioner, he appeared in the departmental type test examination and
successfully passed it, and then, vide order dated 04.03.2014, he was
appointed on promotion as LDC. Thereafter, his pay was fixed from the
date of his joining on the promotional post in the year 2014.
3. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent
No.5, Sri Shibu Deb, also joined the PWD as DRW on 08.08.1988, and at
that time, he was also Madhyamik plucked and he passed Madhyamik
examination in the year 1989, i.e., after his engagement as DRW and
vide office order dated 10.01.2008, his service was regularized in the
post of Peon w.e.f. 01.01.2007, but suddenly on 29.05.2021, a fresh
appointment letter was issued in his favour appointing him to the post of
Work Assistant on regular basis w.e.f. the date of regularization of his
service in the post of Group-D in cancellation of his earlier appointment
letter issued on 10.01.2008 and it was also ordered that his pay scale
be fixed in the relevant grade for regularization with prospective effect,
but with notional fixation from 01.01.2007.
4. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the present
petitioner is similarly situated person like said proforma-respondent
No.5, Sri Shibu Deb, whose pay was ordered to be notionally fixed
against Group-C post w.e.f. 01.01.2007, whereas the pay of the present
petitioner was fixed against such Group-C post only from the year 2014.
Learned counsel also refers to a judgment dated 13.09.2024, passed by
a coordinate bench of this Court in a case passed in Smt. Anima
Debnath versus The State of Tripura & Others in WP(C) No.410 of
2024 and another judgment of the same date in case of Smt.
Aparajita Bhowmik versus The State of Tripura & Others in
WP(C) No.411 of 2024, wherein both the said cases, the petitioners
were also similarly situated persons like the present petitioner, but
taking note of the case of the said proforma-respondent, Sri Shibu Deb,
this Court directed the respondents-State to consider the cases of the
petitioners for their appointment as Group-C employee in accordance
with the Recruitment Rules prescribed for the post of Group-C within a
period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of order. Thereafter,
in terms of said judgments, both the said petitioners, who were Group-D
employees were promoted as Lower Division Clerk (Group-C) w.e.f. the
date of regularization of their services against such Group D posts i.e.
from 01.07.2008, vide two office orders issued by the PWD on
02.01.2025. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel submits that the present case is
also covered by the decisions of both the said two cases, and therefore,
necessary direction may be passed to the respondents for fixation of the
petitioner's pay notionally w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as Group C employee.
5. Mrs. Chakraborty, learned counsel, on the other hand,
argues firstly that the petitioner before passing the Madhyamik
examination or HS (+2 stage) examination, did not obtain any
permission from the Department and secondly that on promotion to the
post of LDC, the present petitioner gave his option for pay fixation w.e.f.
2014, and now suddenly, after so many years he has approached this
Court for such notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.2007, i.e., from the date
when notional fixation in case of Sri Shibu Deb was given effect and,
therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches.
6. Mrs. Chakraborty, learned counsel also relies on a decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Another versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, wherein it was
observed by the Apex Court that Article 14 of the Constitution is not
meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong
decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage
negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other
similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit
inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal
right on others to get the same relief as well. It was also observed that
if a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. It
was further observed that equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in
illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a
negative manner.
7. This Court has taken note of the submissions of both sides
and has perused the record. So far the plea raised by the respondents
that without permission of the Department, the petitioner appeared in
Madhyamik examination is concerned, this matter has already been
dealt with in the judgments dated 13.09.2024 passed in said WP(C)
No.410 of 2024 and WP(C) No.411 of 2024. The Court in those cases
observed that as the petitioners were working as Casual Workers, there
was no necessity for them for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' (for
short, NOC) from the competent authority. Same principle will also
apply in the present case. Above said judgments are not challenged by
the respondents-State in a higher forum, rather, they have complied
with the directions of the Court. It is also a fact that, vide office order
dated 29.05.2021, regularization of service of said Sri Shibu Deb against
Group-C post was given w.e.f. 01.01.2007, i.e., from the date when
service of said Sri Shibu Deb was regularized as Group-D employee.
8. It is not the case of the respondents that wrongly the
service of said Shibu Deb was regularized against Group-C post w.e.f.
01.01.2007, and therefore, the ratio as laid down in Basawaraj and
Another (supra) as indicated above, is not applicable in the present
facts involved in this case. It is also discernible that the present case is
squarely covered by the decisions of this Court passed in WP(C) No.410
of 2024 and WP(C) No.411 of 2024, which are unchallenged by the
respondents.
9. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that
the petitioner is also entitled to get similar benefits as was provided to
Sri Shibu Deb.
In view of above said discussions, the writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the
present petitioner for fixing his pay against Group-C post notionally
w.e.f. 01.01.2007 till the date from when actual financial benefits were
provided to him.
With such observations and direction, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABD Digitally signed by
SATABDI DUTTA
I DUTTA Date: 2025.04.16
11:05:37 +05'30'
Dinashree
