Tripura High Court
Gautam Kumar Saha vs The State Of Tripura on 27 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.637 of 2023
1. Gautam Kumar Saha,
son of Late Gopal Chandra Saha,
resident of Arati Nibash (Near Bharati Press),
North Banamalipur, Agartala, West Tripura,
Pin-799001
2. Sajal Dutta,
son of Late Harimohan Dutta,
resident of Shiuli Apartment,
near Kalimandir, P.O. Indranagar,
Agartala, West Tripura, pin-799006
3. Pradip Kumar Saha,
son of Late Upendra Kumar Saha,
resident of Rajarbag School Road,
P.O. Rajarbag, Udaipur,
District-Gomati Tripura, Pin-799120
4. Pradip Chakraborty,
Son of late Suresh Chandra Chakraborty,
Resident of Bhangerpar, P.O. Rajarbag,
Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura, Pin-799120
5. Ganesh Chandra Sarkar,
son of Late Amulya Chandra Sarkar,
resident of MMC Road, Sidhai Mohanpur,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799211
6. Pallab Bhattacharjee,
son of Late Kshindra Bhattacharjee,
resident of Badharghat, P.O. A.D. Nagar,
Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799003
7. Arpan Kumar Biswas,
son of Late Indra Mohan Biswas,
resident of Dimsagar Choumuhani,
P.O. Agartala, District-West Tripura,
Pin-799001
8. Krishnapada Bhowmik,
son of Late Gopi Mohan Bhowmik,
resident of Ashram Choumuhani,
P.O. Dhaleswar, Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799007
9. Kisalay Shome,
son of Late Harimohan Shome,
resident of Ramnagar Road No.10,
P.O. Ramnagar, Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799002
10. Bidyut Kanati Chowdhury,
son of Late Santosh Ranjan Ramnagar,
resident of Road No.10, P.O. Ramnagar,
(2)
Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799002
11. Dulal Chandra Bhowmik,
son of Late Jagadish Chandra Bhowmik,
resident of Bhowmik Bari, near Katakhal,
P.O.Indranagar, Agartala, District-West Tripura,
Pin-799006
12. Sujit Kumar Saha,
son of Late Mahendra Chandra Saha,
resident of Vidyasagar Road,
Behind KBI boarding, P.O. R.K. Pur,
Udaipur, District-Gomati Tripura
13. Samarjit Das,
son of late Girish Chandra Das,
resident of Collegetilla,
Sarbadhan Mission, A.D. Nagar,
Agartala, District-West Tripura,
Pin-799003
14. Haradhan Das,
son of late Girendra Chandra Das,
resident of R.K. Mission Road,
Gandhighat, P.O. Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799001
15. Amal Choudhury,
son of Late Nitai Choudhury,
resident of Village & P.O.-West Bhubanban,
Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799002
16. Bishnu Prasad Roy,
son of Late Dinesh Chandra Roy,
resident of College Tilla,
P.O. Agartala College, Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799002
---- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Commissioner &
Secretary to the Public Works Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura
2. The Deputy Secretary,
Public Works Department(R&B),
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura
3. The Commissioner & Secretary,
Finance Department, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala,
(3)
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
Sub-Division-Sadar, District-West Tripura
4. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department(R&B),
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat
Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Sub-Division-Sadar,
District-West Tripura
----Respondent(s)
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. Dipankar Sharma, Addl. G.A.
Date of Hearing : 19.02.2025
Date of Judgment
& Order : 27.02.2025
Whether fit for reporting: YES
_________________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
The petitioners have filed this writ petition
seeking for the following reliefs :
"(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and
each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of
Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be
issued, mandating/directing them to revoke/rescind
the impugned Orders, each dated 01.09.2023
(Annexures-15 & 16 respectively supra);
(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents and each
one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of
Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be
issue, mandating/directing them to fix the pay scale of
the Petitioners, in the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/-,
with effect from the date, when the Tripura State Civil
Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 came into force
(i.e. w.e.f.01.01.1986), and thereupon, to grant the
pay scale of Rs.1,700-3,980/- as the 1st scale up-
gradation on completion of 10 years of service as per
the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1988, pay scale of Rs.6,500-12,300/- as CAS-II on
completion of total 17 years of service as per the
Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999
& pay scale of Rs.9,570-30,000/- (with Grade Pay of
Rs.3,500/-) on completion of total 25 years of service
as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2009, and to release all the consequential
benefits flowing therefrom alongwith arrears thereof,
and to modify the respective Pension Payment Orders
of the Petitioners, in tune therewith;
(iii) Call for the records, appertaining to this Writ
Petition;
(iv) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the
Rule absolute in terms of (i) & (ii) above;
(v) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding;
(vi) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon‟ble High Court
may deem fit and proper;"
[2] Heard Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel
and Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Mr. Mangal Debbarma,
Learned Addl. G.A. and Mr. Dipankar Sharma, Learned Addl. G.A.
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
[3] The brief facts as mentioned in the writ petition
filed by the petitioners are in short is that the petitioners No.1 to
16 namely Sri Gautam Kumar Saha (Petitioner No.1), Sri Sajal
Dutta (Petitioner No.2), Sri Pradip Kumar Saha (Petitioner No.3),
Sri Pradip Chakraborty (Petitioner No.4), Sri Ganesh Chandra
Sarkar (Petitioner No.5), Sri Pallab Bhattacharjee (Petitioner
No.6), Sri Arpan Kumar Biswas (Petitioner No.7), Sri
Krishnapada Bhowmik (Petitioner No.8), Sri Kisalay Shome
(Petitioner No.9), Sri Bidyut Kanti Chowdhury (Petitioner No.10),
Sri Dulal Chandra Bhowmik (Petitioner No.11), Sri Sujit Kumar
Saha (Petitioner No.12), Sri Samarjit Das (Petitioner No.13), Sri
Haradhan Das (Petitioner No.14), Sri Amal Choudhury (Petitioner
No.15) and Bishnu Prasad Roy (Petitioner No.16) all were
appointed to the post of Draftsman Grade-III (Civil), under the
PWD, Government of Tripura in the pay scale of Rs.560-1,300/-
along with admissible benefits available from time to time vide
appointment bearing reference No.F.1(87)-IFCD(E)/81 dated
03.12.1982, F.1(87)-IFCD(E)/81 dated 03.12.1982, F.1(87)-
IFCD(E)/81 dated 03.12.1982, F.1(87)-IFCD(E)/81 dated
02.09.1981, F.1(87)-IFCD(E)/81 dated 03.12.1982, F.1(87)-
IFCD(E)/81 dated 02.09.1981, F.6(13)-PWD(E)/81 dated
02.12.1982, F.6(13)-PWD(E)/81 dated 02.12.1982, F.6(13)-
PWD(E)/81(S-I) dated 08.07.1987, F.6(23)-PWD(E)/81(S-I)
dated 06.11.1987, F.6(13)-PWD(E)/81 dated 04.03.1981,
F.1(87)-IFCD(E)/81 dated 02.09.1981, F.1(87)-IFCD(E)/81
dated 03.12.1982, F.6(13)-PWD(E)/81(S-I) dated 07.08.1985,
F.6(23)-PWD(E)/81(S-I) dated 06.11.1987, F.1(87)-IFCD(E)/81
dated 03.12.1982. Accordingly, in pursuance of the said order of
appointment the petitioners have joined to the posts of
Draftsman Grade-III under PWD, Government of Tripura and
were discharging their duties sincerely with utmost satisfaction
of the authority since the time of their joining. The petitioner
No.1, Sri Gautam Kumar Saha joined on 13.12.1982, the
petitioner No.2, Sri Sajal Datta joined on 13.12.1982, the
petitioner No.3, Sri Pradip Kumar Saha joined on 14.12.1982,
the petitioner No.4, Sri Pradip Chakraborty joined on
23.09.1981, the petitioner No.5, Sri Ganesh Chandra Sarkar
joined on 13.12.1982, the petitioner No.6, Sri Pallab
Bhattacharjee joined on 02.09.1981, the petitioner No.7, Sri
Arpan Kumar Biswas joined on 06.12.1982, the petitioner No.8,
Sri Krishnapada Bhowmik joined on 04.12.1982, the petitioner
No.9, Sri Kisalay Shome joined on 07.09.1987, the petitioner
No.10, Sri Bidyut Kanti Chowdhury joined on 07.11.1987, the
petitioner No.11, Sri Dulal Chandra Bhowmik joined on
06.03.1981, the petitioner No.12, Sri Sujit Kumar Saha joined on
07.09.1981, the petitioner No.13, Sri Samarjit Das joined on
13.12.1982, the petitioner No.14, Sri Haradhan Das joined on
14.08.1985, the petitioner No.15, Sri Amal Choudhury joined on
07.11.1987 and the petitioner No.16, Bishnu Prasad Roy joined
on 13.12.1982.
[4] Thereafter, the posts of the petitioners were re-
designated as Junior Draftsman w.e.f.01.01.1986 on
promulgation of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 1988 (ROP Rules, 1988 in short) and thus the petitioners
were accorded with the pay scale of Rs.1,300-3,220/-
w.e.f.01.01.1986. The said re-designation was made pursuant to
Entry No.29 (Public Works Department), Sl.No.16 appearing at
Page No.105 of the ROP Rules, 1988 whereby the post of
Draftsman Grade-III was re-designated as Junior Draftsman.
Further, according to the petitioners, in furtherance of the ROP
Rules, 1988, the revised scale was brought into force,
w.e.f.01.01.1986 and under the ROP Rules, 1988 the post of
Surveyor was categorized into 3 grades and re-designated as
Senior Surveyor, Surveyor and Junior Surveyor, having the pay
scale of Rs.1,700-3,980/-, Rs.1,450-3,710/- & Rs.1,300-3,220/-
respectively. According to the petitioners, in compliance of the
ROP Rules, 1988 some persons, holding the posts of Surveyor
were re-designated as Junior Surveyor and their pay scales were
fixed at Rs.1,300-3,220/- which ought to have been revised to
Rs.1,450-3,710/- which was meant for the post of Surveyor. On
account of such fixation of pay, the said persons, holding the
posts of Surveyor, were not only re-designated as Junior
Surveyor, but in consequence thereof, they were stepped down
to the grade of Junior Surveyor from the grade of Surveyor and
their pay scales were fixed at Rs.1,300-3,220/- which was meant
for the post of Junior Surveyor.
[5] The petitioners further stated that one Nimai
Chandra Das, was initially appointed as Forester, under the
Forest Department, Government of Tripura. Thereafter, vide
order dated 14.05.1986, issued by the competent authority, said
Nimai Chandra Das was promoted to the post of Surveyor, and
he was granted the pay scale of Rs.560-1,300/-, as the said pay
scale was meant for the post of Surveyor. As per ROP Rules,
1988, in addition to the post of Surveyor, 2 other posts were
created, i.e., the post of Junior Surveyor and the post of Senior
Surveyor, but said Nimai Chandra Das was re-designated as
Junior Surveyor, and his pay scale was accordingly fixed at
Rs.1,300-3,200/- in terms of the ROP Rules, 1988.
[6] Being aggrieved with the decision of the
Department concerned, said Nimai Chandra Das had filed a writ
petition vide No.Civil Rule 304 of 1994, before the Hon‟ble
Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench), but the same was
dismissed. After that, said Nimai Chandra Das preferred an
appeal before the Hon‟ble Division Bench of the said Hon‟ble High
Court vide Writ Appeal No.48 of 1999. By judgment and order
dated 27.04.2005, the said writ appeal being Writ Appeal No.48
of 1999 was allowed and a direction was given to the
respondents to fix the pay scale of said Namai Chandra Das at
Rs.1,450-3,710/- as per ROP Rules, 1988 w.e.f. the date on
which the ROP Rules came into force. It was further submitted
that as per the said ROP Rules, 1988 the post of Surveyor in the
Forest Department, Government of Tripura as well as in the
PWD, Government of Tripura and in other Departments, were
brought under the Graded Scale No.9 and were treated in the
manner as indicated hereinabove.
[7] Thereafter, one Sunil Baran Datta, one Amullya
Bhattacharjee & one Nihar Ranjan Deb also jointly filed a writ
petition bearing No.66 of 2008 before the Hon‟ble High Court
praying that they should be treated as Surveyors, in the pay
scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/-. So, by judgment and order dated
19.08.2013 the said writ petition No.66 of 2008 was allowed
directing the respondents therein to treat the said 3 writ
petitioners as Surveyor, in the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/-
w.e.f. the date on which the ROP Rules, 1988 came into force
and according to the petitioners, the said judgment was duly
complied with by the Department concerned.
[8] Thereafter, a group of writ petitions were filed
before the High Court bearing case number WP(C)637 of 2017
[Rajendra Majumder & 2 Others], WP(C)638 of 2017 [Swapan
Chakraborty & 3 Others] & WP(C)639 of 2017 [Surjya Kumar
Das & 11 Others] and all the aforesaid writ petitions were
allowed and the relief was granted and the said judgments were
accordingly complied with.
[9] The petitioners further submitted that most
arbitrarily the petitioners accorded the pay scale of Rs.1,300-
3,220/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 instead of Rs.1,450-3,710/- and at a
much later stage, w.e.f. the date of their respective dates of
completion of 10 years of service, the petitioners were granted
the 1st scale up-gradation, in the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/-
as per the ROP Rules, 1988, CAS-II benefit on completion of
total 17 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.5,550-10,700/- as
per the ROP Rules, 1999 & ACP-III benefit on completion of total
25 years of service in the pay scale of Rs.9,570-30,000/- as per
the ROP Rules, 2009.
[10] Thereafter, being aggrieved with the decision of
the respondent authority and referring the judgment and orders
as indicated above, the petitioners submitted representations
before the Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Tripura but the
Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Tripura vide memorandum
bearing reference No.F.3(3)-PWD(E)/2020/17718-804 dated
03.03.2021 without assigning any reason, rejected the
representations of the petitioners. After that, the present
petitioners being aggrieved with the ground of rejection praying
for fixation of the pay scale filed a writ petition which was
numbered as WP(C)858 of 2021 before this High Court and this
High Court by a judgment and order dated 11.04.2023 disposed
of the said writ petitions with the following observations :
"5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence on
record. The petitioners are directed to file
representation before the respondents ventilating
the merits of their grievances and their
entitlement in the light of the Judgments and
Order of this Hon'ble Court which are passed in
their favour and all other relevant information in
support of their case. On receipt of the same, the
respondents shall examine the matter and pass a
reasoned order as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of 3(three) months
from the date of receipt of such representation
from the petitioners.
6. Further it is needless to observe that the
memorandum bearing reference No.F.3(3)-
PWD(E)/2020/17718-804 dated 03.03.2021 is an
un-reasoned order and this Court feels that the
respondents should pass a speaking order with
regard to their decision taken and the same
should be communicated to the petitioners
herein, and the same is directed herein.
7. With the above observation and direction, this
present writ petition stands disposed of. As a
sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stand closed."
[11] After that, the petitioners in pursuance of the
direction of the High Court submitted one representation
conjointly on 01.05.2023 to the respondent authority ventilating
the merits of their grievances and seeking their entitlements. But
the Deputy Secretary, PWD (R&B), Government of Tripura vide
order dated 01.09.2023 [Annexure-15] rejected the
representations filed by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners
have filed the writ petition seeking the reliefs as prayed for.
[12] The State-respondents have contested the writ
petition by filing counter-affidavit and additional counter-
affidavit. In the counter-affidavits respondent authority have
denied the total assertions made by the petitioners in the writ
petition and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the
reliefs as prayed for. In para Nos.11 & 12 the State-respondents
further stated as under :
"11. That, in regards to the statement made in
paragraph 2.3 to 2.22 of the writ petition it is
stated that the petitioners were been appointed
to the post of Draftsman Gr.-III in the pay scale
of Rs.560-1300/- under TSCS (RP) Rules, 1982
and was re-designated as Junior Draftsman under
TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988 (pay scale of Rs.1300-
3220/-), likewise the post of Draftsman Gr.-II in
the pay scale of Rs.600-1440/- under TSCS(RP)
Rules, 1982 was re-designated as Draftsman
under TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988 (pay scale of
Rs.1450-3710/-)& the post of Draftsman Gr.-I in
the pay scale of Rs.650-1595/- under TSCS(RP)
Rules, 1982 was re-designated as Senior
Draftsman under TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988 (pay
scale of Rs.1700-3980/-).
Further, the petitioners have been correctly
placed in the post of Junior Draftsman in the light
of TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988. It may be stated that
the petitioners who have joined in the scale of
pay of Rs.560-1300/- in the light of TSCS(RP)
Rules, 1982" and has been revised to the scale of
pay of Rs.1300-3220/- under Graded Scale No.9
in the light of TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988. So, there is
nothing wrong in placing of those petitioners in
the hierarchy of Junior Draftsman.
The following table shows both rank wise pay
scale of the various categories of Draftsman posts
under ROP 1982 & ROP 1988 respectively :-
Name of the post Pay Scale under Name of the post(Re- Revised pay scale under
TSCS(RP)Rules,1982 designated) TSCS(RP)Rules,1988
w.e.f.01/01/1986
Draftsman, Grade-I Rs.650-1595/- Senior Draftsman Rs.1700-3980/-
Draftsman, Grade- Rs.600-1440/- Draftsman Rs.1450-3710/-
II
Draftsman, Grade- Rs.560-1300/- Junior Draftsman Rs.1300-3220/-
III
On the other hand, there existed only 02(two)
categories of posts in Public Works Department in
the grade of Senior Surveyor & Surveyor having
the scale of pay Rs.600-1440/- & Rs.560-1300/-
respectively in the light of TSCS(RP) Rules, 1982.
In course of time those two posts were
remodeled & during the revision, post of the
Senior Surveyor having the scale of pay Rs.600-
1440/- was re-designated to the post of Surveyor
in the pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- & post of the
Surveyor having the scale of pay of Rs.560-
1300/- was re-designated in the post of Junior
Surveyor to the pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/- in
the light of TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988. All these
different categories of posts of Surveyor were
clubbed together under graded scale No.9 which
may been seen from serial No.16 of Part B, in the
light of TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988.
The following shows both rank wise pay scale of
the various categories of Surveyor posts under
ROP 1982 & ROP 1988 respectively :-
Name of Pay Scale under Name of Revised pay scale
the post ROP, 1982 the under ROP, 1988
post(Re- w.e.f.01/01/1986
designated)
- - Senior Rs.1700-3980/-
Surveyor
Senior Rs.600-1440/- Surveyor Rs.1450-3710/-
Surveyor
Surveyor Rs.560-1300/- Junior Rs.1300-3220/-
Surveyor
The above re-designation of posts was done on the
basis of posts and not on the basis of pay scale.
Further, a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court
in Case No.W.A.66 of 2008, has clearly mentioned
that a person who is working as a Surveyor prior
to the coming into force of the ROP Rules, 1988
cannot be placed in the lower post of Junior
Surveyor and must be placed in the post of
Surveyor."
The Pay Scale of Rs.1450-3710/- was allowed to
those Surveyors who were appointed before
publication of TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988. And,
accordingly, Department allowed the Pay Scale of
Rs.1450-3710/- to those Surveyors.
The petitioners had drawn the pay in the scale of
Rs.560-1300/-. However, as per Graded Serial
No.9, the scale of Rs.560-1300/- has been revised
to Rs.1300-3220/-. In compliance to the same,
the petitioners have been allowed the revised pay
scale of Rs.1300-3220/- as per Graded Serial
No.9.
Copy of the Sl.No.16 of Part B of TSCS(RP) Rules,
1988 is annexed as Annexure-R/1.
Copy of the graded scale No.9 of Part C of
TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988 is annexed as Annexure-
R/2.
12. That, in regards to the statement made in
paragraph 2.23 to 2.33 of the writ petitioner, it is
stated that irrespective of same pay scale the
nature of discharging duties, degrees of
responsibilities etc. vested upon to the post of
Junior Surveyor & Junior Draftsman are purely
different. Hence, both the cases can't be
measured in the same scale of reference.
Further, it appears that 02(two) nos. posts of
different categories of Surveyor (Surveyor &
Senior Surveyor) under TSCS(RP) Rules, 1982
were bifurcated into 03(three) nos. posts of
different categories of Surveyor (Junior Surveyor,
Surveyor & Senior Surveyor) irrespective of
different scale of pay.
Further, 03(three) nos. posts of different
categories of Draftsman (Draftsman Grade-I,
Draftsman Grade-II & Draftsman Grade-III)
under TSCS(RP) Rules, 1982 were re-designated
into 03(three) nos. of posts of different
categories of Draftsman (Junior Draftsman,
Draftsman & Senior Draftsman) irrespective of
different scale of pay.
From the above reading, it is clear that scale up
gradation of Draftsman, Grade-III {as per
TCSC(RP) Rules, 1982} or, Junior Draftsman {re-
designated as Junior Draftsman as pre TCSC(RP)
Rules, 1988} is not possible as re-designation of
posts in the case of Draftsman was done on the
basis of posts and not on the basis of pay scale.
Further, it is stated that, the Petitioners were
appointed to the post of Draftsman Grade-III and
accordingly joined in the Public Works
Department in the post of Draftsman Grade-III in
the scale of pay of Rs.560-1300/- as per
TSCS(RP) Rules, 1982. Under TSCS(RP) Rules,
1982, there were 03(three) categories of posts
namely Draftsman Grade-III having the pay scale
of Rs.560-1300/-, Draftsman Grade-II having the
pay scale of Rs.600-1440/- and Draftsman Grade-
I having the pay scale of Rs.650-1595/-.
Thereafter, in the light of TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988
the post of Draftsman were bifurcated into 3
grades and re-designated as Junior Draftsman
(earlier Draftsman Grade-III) having the pay
scale of Rs.1300-3220/-, Draftsman (earlier
Draftsman Grade-II) having the pay scale of
Rs.1450-3710/-, Senior Draftsman (earlier
Draftsman Grade-I) having the pay scale of
Rs.1700-3980/- respectively. Further, under
TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988 the connected post related
to the field of draftsman under PWD was
remodeled. It is further to be stated here that the
above re-designations were done on the basis of
posts and not on the basis of pay scale. In the
instant case, the Petitioners were appointed in
the scale of pay of Rs.560-1300/- and they
cannot be allowed a higher scale of pay of
Rs.1450-3710/- because this pay scale is for
those incumbents who held the pay scale of
Rs.600-1440/- under TSCS(RP) Rules, 1988.
Hence, the claim of the Petitioners would disturb
the hierarchical balance in the organizational
structure of the Draftsman which would
imbalance the functioning of machinery and as
such the instant petition filed by the Petitioners
are liable to be dismissed.
As such it deserves logical consideration that the
incumbents with the scale of pay of Rs.560-
1300/- cannot be allowed a higher scale of pay of
Rs.1450-3710/- because the pay scale of
Rs.1450-3710/- is for those incumbents who held
the pay scale of Rs.600-1440/- under TSCS(RP)
Rules, 1988. Consideration of claim of the
Petitioners would disturb the hierarchical balance
in the Organizational structure of the Draftsman
which would imbalance the functioning of the
machinery. Hence, the claim of the Petitioners
may not be considered."
Finally, the State-respondents by filing the
counter-affidavit prayed for dismissal of this writ petition filed by
the present petitioners.
[13] In course of hearing, Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman,
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
fairly submitted that this present case is covered by the
judgment of the Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) in
Writ Appeal No.48 of 1999 [Sri Nimai Chandra Das versus State
of Tripura and Others] dated 27.04.2005, WP(C)No.66 of 2008
[Sri Sunil Baran Datta and Others versus State of Tripura and
Others] dated 19.08.2013 and the judgment dated 07.12.2018
in a common judgment in connection with Case No.WP(C)No.637
of 2017, WP(C)No.638 of 2017 and WP(C)No.639 of 2017.
Referring those citations Learned senior counsel submitted that
the case of the present petitioners are squarely covered by the
said judgments and there is no scope to deviate from the
principle laid down in the said judgment by the High Court and
those judgments have been duly complied with or implemented
by the state government and the respective petitioners have got
the benefit from the Departments.
[14] Learned senior counsel also referred the
memorandum dated 28.04.1990 (Annexure-3) issued by the
Finance Department, Government of Tripura and referring the
same, Learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent
authorities have misinterpreted or misread the said
memorandum issued by the Finance Department and refused to
provide/allow benefits to the present petitioners who were
arbitrarily denied the benefit of the revised pay scale as per ROP
Rule, 1988 and urged before this Court that if the said
memorandum dated 28.04.1990 of the Finance Department is
duly and properly interpreted, in that case, the entire confusion
of the Department would clear. But the respondent authorities
without giving effect to the said memorandum tried to draw the
attention of the Court that the case of the present petitioners are
not covered by the principles laid down in the said judgments
and urged for allowing this writ petition.
[15] On the other hand, Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Learned
Addl. G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents fairly
submitted that in those cases the petitioners were appointed as
„Surveyors‟ not as Draftsman but the present petitioners were
appointed/engaged as Draftsman, so, with the strength of the
said judgment, the petitioners cannot expect the same benefit to
be entitled in this case. Furthermore, referring the ROP Rules,
Learned Addl. G.A. submitted that as per Annexure-8 Sl. No.9 as
relied upon by the petitioners it is crystal clear that although the
petitioners were initially joined as Draftsman Grade-III which
were in the pay scale of Rs.560-1,300/- but the same posts were
re-designated as Junior Draftsman w.e.f.01.01.1986 on
promulgation of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
1988 and their pay scale were fixed to Rs.1,300-3,220/- and
there was no anomaly in it. Furthermore, the citations as
referred by the petitioners were meant for the post of Surveyors,
not for the post of Draftsman Grade-III and the same cannot be
equated with the case of the present petitioners. As such, by
invoking the principles of said citations, the present petitioners
cannot be entitled to get any benefit in this case. Furthermore,
referring the counter-affidavit, Learned Addl. G.A. submitted that
re-designation of posts as Draftsman was done on the basis of
post but not on the basis of any pay scale. It was also further
submitted that the petitioners were appointed in the pay scale of
Rs.560-1,300/- as such, they cannot be allowed a higher pay
scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/- because this pay scale works for those
incumbents who held the initial pay scale of Rs.600-1,440/-
under Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988.
Finally, Learned Addl. G.A. submitted that there is no merit in
the petition and urged for dismissal of this petition filed by the
petitioners with costs.
[16] I have heard arguments of both the sides at length
and perused the relevant documents submitted by the
petitioners as annexures with the writ petition and also gone
through the judgments referred by the petitioners of the Hon‟ble
Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) and also gone through the
judgments passed by the coordinate benches of this High Court.
Admittedly, all the aforesaid cases were relating to the post of
Surveyors. Now, let us examine whether the principles of the
said citations can be applied in this case or not. In this regard,
Hon'ble Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) in W.A.No.48
of 1999 in Shri Nimai Chandra Das versus State of Tripura
and Others dated 27.04.2005 in para Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9
observed as under :
"6. On noticing the above aspects of the matter,
the Learned Single Judge has observed in the
impugned judgment to the effect that the post of
Surveyor has been re-designated as Junior
Surveyor and the scale prescribed for the post of
Junior Surveyor being Rs.1300-3320/- which is
corresponding revised pay scale of the appellant,
he has been correctly designated as a Junior
Surveyor. We notice that the conclusion so
reached by the learned Single Judge is contrary to
the ROP Rules, 1988, inasmuch as the post of
Surveyor has not been re-designated as Junior
Surveyor. What has been done in the ROP Rules,
1988, is that in addition to the post of Surveyor,
two posts have been created, one being junior to
the post of Surveyor and the same being
designated as Junior Surveyor and the other
being senior to the post of Surveyor and the same
being designated as Senior Surveyor and the
same being designated as Senior Surveyor. Since
the appellant was already a Surveyor, he could
not have been degraded to the level of Junior
Surveyor merely because his pre-revised pay
scale was meant for the post of Junior Surveyor.
As the effect of granting of the benefit of revised
pay scale to a person might make him junior in
his grade, the Department of Finance,
Government of Tripura, had, in fact, vide its
Memorandum No.F.4(6)/FIN(PC)/88(L), dated
28.04.1990 elaborately dealt with the matter and
issued the clarification, in this regard, which, we
find, runs as follows :
"M E M O R A N D U M
Dated, Agartala, the 28th April, 1990
Subject : Clarification of Tripura State Civil
Service (Revised Pay) Rules. 1988- Fixation of
Pay.
The undersigned is directed to state that
it has come to notice that in the case of
appointment to posts with graded scales during
the period from 1.1.86 upto the date of
publication of the ROP Rules, in some cases
employees have been allowed a revised scale
which is lower than the scale of the grade in
which he is placed by virtue of holding a
particular existing scale. For example, an
employee who appointed during the period from
1.1.1986 upto the date of publication of the ROP
Rules, 1988 in the existing scale of Rs.560-
1300/-. This scale in this particular case was
placed in the intermediate grade with the up-
graded revised scale of Rs.1450-3710/-. But the
employee was allowed the revised scale of lowest
grade. This was perhaps done in view of the
stipulation in Part-C of the rules that no new
appointment should be made except in the lowest
grade.
It is hereby clarified that this not the
correct position. No employee should get a scale
lower than the revised scale of the grade in which
he falls by virtue of holding a particular existing
scale.
The stipulation in Part-C of the ROP Rules,
1988 that no new appointment should be made at
any level other than the lowest or no new post
should be created except at the lowest grade will
apply in the case of appointment/creation after
the publication of the ROP Rules, 88 and where
the appointment/creation is in the revised scale.
This stipulation will not apply where
appointment/creation was in the existing scale
before publication of the ROP Rules, 1988."
7. From the above memorandum, it is abundantly
clear that an employee, who was appointed
during the period from 01-01-86 to the date of
publication of the ROP Rules, 1988, in the existing
pay scale of Rs.560-1300/-, his revised pay scale
would be Rs.1450-3710/-. In the case at hand,
since the appellant came to be appointed, on
promotion, to the post of Surveyor by orde, dated
14.5.1986, and was already granted the pay scale
of Rs.500-1300/- before the ROP Rules, 1988,
came into force, he could not have been the re-
designated as, or brought down to the level of,
Junior Surveyor with the scale of pay of Rs.1300-
3220/-, In terms of the memorandum, dated 28-
4-1990 aforementioned, the appellant ought to
have been kept retained and designated as a
Surveyor and he ought to have been allowed the
pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/-, which has the pay
scale meant for the post of Surveyor and which
pay scale the appellant had demanded. On careful
perusal of the impugned judgment, we notice that
the learned Single Judge has not taken Into
account at all the Memorandum, dated 28-4-1990,
aforementioned and it was, perhaps, as a result of
his omission to note the contents of the said
Memorandum that the learned Single Judge
concluded that the post of Surveyor had been re-
designated under the ROP Rules, 1988, as a
Junior Surveyor.
8. Because of what have been discussed and
pointed out above, we are of the view that the
State-respondents/authorities concerned have
illegally and unjustifiably not given the benefit of
revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- to the
appellant and brought him down to the grade of
Junior Surveyor, whereas he ought to have been
retained in the grade of Surveyor and he ought to
have been given the revised scale of pay meant
for the post of Surveyor.
9. For the forgoing reasons, this appeal succeeds
and the impugned judgment and order dated
11.5.1999, In Civil Rule No.304 of 1994 is hereby
set aside. The letter, dated 5-6-1993, by which
the respondent no.2 has turned down the prayer
of the appellant for granting him the pay scale of
Rs.1450-3710/- shall also stand set aside and
quashed. The respondents/authorities concerned
are hereby directed to fix the pay scale of the
appellant at Rs.1450-3710/- as per the ROP
Rules, 1988, with effect from the date, when the
sald ROP Rules, 1988, came into force treating
the appellant as an incumbent in the post of
Surveyor and shall make available accordingly to
the appellant the arrears of pay and allowances.
The benefits given to the appellant shall remain
confined to the case of the appellant only."
The State of Tripura has not challenged the said
judgment and the judgment was accordingly complied with.
The coordinate Bench of this High Court in
WP(C)No.66 of 2008 [Shri Sunil Baran Datta and Others
versus State of Tripura and Others dated 19.08.2013] in
para Nos.6,7,8 & 9 observed as under :
"6. Admittedly, the petitioners were senior to
Nimai Chandra Das. In the writ petition filed by
Nimai Chandra Das, it was stated that the private
respondents were junior to him. It appears that
no notice was issued to the private respondents,
who are the present petitioners and the State also
did not bring it to the notice of the Court that in
fact the present petitioners who were respondent
no. 2 to 4 in the petition of Nimai chandra Das
were senior to him. It was also not brought to the
notice of the Court by the State that these
petitioners had not been placed in the pay scale
of Rs. 1450-3710.
7. The appeal filed by Nimai Chandra Das was
allowed because the State did not disclose all
facts to the Court. In the present case, the main
stand of the State is that there are only graded
pay scales and that since the petitioners have
exercised their option to be placed as Junior
Surveyors, they cannot be permitted to raise this
objection. It is also urged that there is no
promotional post but it is only a gradation of the
post.
8. I am unable to accept this submission because
the petitioners were posted as Surveyors in the
year 1979, much before the promulgation of the
Rules of 1991. A Division Bench of this Court in
appeal no. W.A. 48 of 1999, has clearly held that
a person who is working as Surveyor prior to the
coming into force of the ROP, Rules, 1988 cannot
be placed in the lower post of Junior Surveyor
and must be placed in the post of Surveyor. This
judgment of the Division Bench is binding on all
including this Court. The only other ground
available to the State is that the petitioners
herein had exercised an option to be placed in the
scale of Junior Surveyor. This is true. However,
one cannot lose sight of the fact that Nimai
Chandra Das who was admittedly junior to the
petitioners has been granted this benefit and is
drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710
i.e. much higher than that of his seniors. This
judgment of the Division Bench was never
challenged by the State. Having accepted the
judgment in Nimai Chandra Das's case now it
does not lie in the mouth of the State to urge that
persons who are junior to Nimai Chandra Das
should be denied the same benefit.
9. In view of the above discussion, the writ
petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed to
be treated as Surveyors with the date on
promulgation of the ROP Rules, 1988 and they be
placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710 for all
intense and purposes i.e. for the purpose of
fixation of pay, grant of increment, interest, etc.
However, as far as actual arrears of pay are
concerned, the same shall be paid to the
petitioners only w.e.f. 1st February, 2005, i.e. 3
(three) years prior to the date of filing of the writ
petition."
The said judgment also has been complied with.
Further, in WP(C)No.637 of 2017 along with
WP(C)No.638 of 2017 and WP(C)No.639 of 2017 [Sri
Rajendra Majumder and Others versus State of Tripura
and Others dated 07.12.2018] this High Court in para Nos.10
and 11 observed as under :
"[10] Finally, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
has submitted that some of the petitioners,
particularly the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.638 of
2017 have retired from the service before filing of
the writ petition. Thus, an additional direction
this court may issue is that their pension payment
order be revised and the pension may be
determined in terms of the direction to fix their
pay in the scale of pay of Rs.1450- 3710/- which
has been admittedly revised to Rs.5000-10300/-.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has further
submitted that the grant of upgraded pay scale
for their occupying the post of Surveyor would
also be the basis of their Career Advance Scheme
[CAS] after the postulated period. If any of the
petitioners would have reached the grade of Sr.
Surveyor, then the corresponding revised pay
scale shall also be entitled to them. Accordingly,
their pay should be fixed and wherever required
pension should be determined on the basis of the
last pay as would be calculated on the basis of the
new matrix as indicated above.
[11] Having appreciated the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
scrutinized the records placed before this court,
this court finds that these petitions are covered
by the decision of the Gauhati High Court Nimai
Ch. Das (supra). So far the question of laches is
concerned, the field is be well governed by the
principle laid down in Yogendra Srivastava
(supra). Further, those who are appointed as the
Surveyor, even after the ROP Rules, 1988 is
notified, they will also be entitled to the similar
benefit alike the petitioners who wer appointed
before 01.01.1986. Thus, all the writ petitions are
allowed with the following directions:
The petitioners will be fitted against the
post of Surveyor in the Graded Scale No.9,
Part-C of the ROP Rules, 1988 and their
pay shall be fixed in terms of the fixation
rules as provided in ROP Rules, 1988 or as
modified subsequently, in the scale of pay
of Rs.1450-3710/- and if they are to move
to the higher graded scale of the Sr.
Surveyor, they will also be entitled to the
pay scale of Rs.5000-10300/- and in the
event of their having moved to the grade
of Sr. Surveyor within the currency of the
ROP Rules, 1988, their pay shall be fixed
in the scale of pay Rs.1700-3980/-.
Regarding this, no dispute has been raised
by the petitioners. However, per chance, if
any of the petitioners had reached that
level, their pay scale by virtue of the
operation of the Tripura Civil Services
(ROP) Rules, 1999 be raised to the
corresponding scale as corollary.
Accordingly, their pay shall be
determined. However, the petitioners will
not be get the financial benefit of the
entire arrear. The payment of arrears shall
be restricted to 3[three] years preceding
from the date of filing of the writ
petitions. For purpose of reference,
though all the writ petitions were filed on
02.06.2017 and as such, the actual arrear
shall be paid from 02.06.2014 and for the
period subsequent thereto. So far the
petitioners, who have retired from the
service are concerned, their last pay be
re-determined and their pension be
revised accordingly. The arrears of
pension be paid from 02.06.2014. Such
payment of arrear in terms of this
direction shall be made to the petitioners
by the respondents within a period of
6[six] months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this judgment and order. The
petitioners shall file the copy of the order
to the respondents.
There shall be no order as to costs.
It is needless to say that the pay scale as
directed to be provided hereunder be revised
by the subsequent pay revision rules."
This judgment also has been complied with by the
state government.
[17] Here in the given case I have gone through the
principles of the said judgment and the documents relied upon
by the petitioners. It appears to me that the present case of the
petitioners is also similar to the case of the petitioners of those
cases. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. Roy Barman
in course of hearing referred the memorandum dated
28.04.1990 (Annexure-3) issued by the Finance Department,
Government of Tripura as indicated in the judgment of Nimai
Chandra Das (supra). From the contents of the said
memorandum dated 28.04.1990, it is crystal clear that the
Finance Department by the said memorandum clarified that no
employee should get a scale lower than the revised scale of the
grade in which he falls by virtue of holding a particular existing
scale.
[18] In the case at hand the petitioner No.1, Sri
Gautam Kumar Saha joined on 13.12.1982, the petitioner No.2,
Sri Sajal Datta joined on 13.12.1982, the petitioner No.3, Sri
Pradip Kumar Saha joined on 14.12.1982, the petitioner No.4,
Sri Pradip Chakraborty joined on 23.09.1981, the petitioner
No.5, Sri Ganesh Chandra Sarkar joined on 13.12.1982, the
petitioner No.6, Sri Pallab Bhattacharjee joined on 02.09.1981,
the petitioner No.7, Sri Arpan Kumar Biswas joined on
06.12.1982, the petitioner No.8, Sri Krishnapada Bhowmik joined
on 04.12.1982, the petitioner No.9, Sri Kisalay Shome joined on
07.09.1987, the petitioner No.10, Sri Bidyut Kanti Chowdhury
joined on 07.11.1987, the petitioner No.11, Sri Dulal Chandra
Bhowmik joined on 06.03.1981, the petitioner No.12, Sri Sujit
Kumar Saha joined on 07.09.1981, the petitioner No.13, Sri
Samarjit Das joined on 13.12.1982, the petitioner No.14, Sri
Haradhan Das joined on 14.08.1985, the petitioner No.15, Sri
Amal Choudhury joined on 07.11.1987 and the petitioner No.16,
Bishnu Prasad Roy joined on 13.12.1982 to the post of
Draftsman Grade-III i.e. during the period w.e.f.01.01.1986 up
to the publication of ROP Rules, 1988 and as such, both the
petitioners would be covered by the said ROP Rules of 1988.
Now, if we meticulously go through the Entry No.16 of
Annexure-2 it is very much clear that the post of Surveyor and
Draftsman Grade-III initially engaged in the pay scale of Rs.560-
1,300/- were upgraded to scale No.9 vide Sl.No.9 of Annexure-8
and since the post of Surveyor was given the benefit of pay scale
of Rs.1,450-3,710/- by the said judgments, so, taking the
advantage of ROP Rules, 1988 the State-respondents cannot
deprive the present petitioners from the revised pay scale of
Rs.1,450-3,710/- rather they have been allowed the revised pay
scale by misinterpreting or misreading the principles laid down in
the said judgments and also misinterpreting the memorandum
dated 28.04.1990 issued by the Finance Department,
Government of Tripura itself.
[19] Learned Addl. G.A. in course of hearing all though
took the plea that the present petitioners cannot be equated with
the post of „Surveyor‟ who have been given the benefits of ROP
Rules, 1988 in the pay scale of Rs.1,450-3,710/- in pursuance of
the said judgments(supra) but it appears that the Learned Addl.
G.A. in course of hearing of argument has failed to misinterpret
the principles laid down in the said judgments as well as the
memorandum dated 28.04.1990 as indicated above of the
Finance Department. Thus, in the considered view of this Court
the present petitioners are also entitled to the get the benefit
like the case of „Surveyor‟ as mentioned earlier because it is the
solemn duty of the welfare State to render substantial justice to
its employees. Here in the given case, the State of Tripura
framed ROP Rules, 1988 and as per (Annexure-R/1) Serial No.16
the posts of Surveyor, Draftsman Grade-III were graded in Scale
No.9 and since the posts of Surveyor as per the direction of the
Hon‟ble High Court given the benefit of revised pay scale of
Rs.1,450-3,710/-, so, living on the same status and by the
strength of the said Rules, 1988 there is no scope to interfere
with the status of Draftsman Grade-III i.e. the present
petitioners in a different manner which in the considered opinion
of this Court the respondent authorities arbitrarily did and as
such, there cases should be treated like the case of the
„Surveyor‟ who have already availed the benefits.
[20] In view of the above discussion, the present writ
petition is allowed. The writ petitioners are entitled to be treated
like the Surveyors with the date on promulgation of the ROP
Rules, 1988 and they be placed in the pay scale of Rs.1,450-
3,710/- for all purposes i.e. for the purpose of fixation of pay,
grant of increment, interest etc. But considering the facts and
circumstances of this case, the payment of arrears shall be
restricted to 3(three) years preceding from the date of filing this
writ petition. Consequently, the impugned orders dated
01.09.2023 (Annexures-15 & 16 respectively) stands set
aside/revoked.
With this observation, the writ petition is disposed
of.
No order is passed as to costs.
JUDGE
SABYASACHI SABYASACHI BHATTACHARJEE
BHATTACHARJEE +05'30'
Sabyasachi B
