Tripura High Court
Shri Abhijit Saha vs The Agartala Municipal Corporation & 6 ... on 21 July, 2025
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I.A.01 of 2025
In
WP(C) No.368 of 2025
Shri Abhijit Saha
----Applicant(s)
Versus
The Agartala Municipal Corporation & 6 Ors.
----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jayki Murasing, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. GA
Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
21/07/2025
Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman
assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Jayki Murasing is present on
behalf of the applicant. Learned Counsel, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik is
present on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Learned Addl. GA,
Mr. Karnajit De is present on behalf of respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that
the present applicant is serving under Agartala Municipal
Corporation. The respondent authority by a memorandum dated
07.02.2025(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed an order for
recovery of an amount of Rs.7,21,708/- from the salary of the
applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a sum of
Rs.9,000/- has already been started deducting from the month of
February, 2025 from the salary of the applicant. It is further
submitted that the applicant being a Junior Engineer, Grade V (B)
got his first ACP as per ROP Rules, 1999 on completion of 8(eight)
years of continuous and satisfactory service and there was no fraud
or misrepresentation on his part. But, the respondent authority
took the plea that as per Tripura Engineering Service Rules (7th
Amendment, 2014) necessary qualifying service period for availing
first ACP would be 10 years. As such, according to the respondents,
the applicant was entitled to get his first ACP w.e.f. 19.11.2017 in
place of 19.11.2015. So, the respondent authority passed an order
for deduction of the excess amount from his salary. Learned Senior
Counsel again submitted that the incident took place in the year
2015, and by this time 10(ten) years have elapsed. In this regard,
the applicant also submitted one representation to the Department
on 17.02.2025, but no action was taken, and there was no mischief
on his part. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in a
similarly situated case this court in WP(C) No.780 of
2024(Annexure-8 to the writ petition) granted relief to the
petitioner. So, Learned Senior Counsel urged for allowing the
connected writ petition and also to stay the operation of the
impugned memorandum dated 07.02.2025 till disposal of the
connected writ petition.
Learned Counsel, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik for respondent Nos.1
to 4 submitted that in pursuance of the Tripura Engineering Service
Rules (7th Amendment, 2014), the qualifying service period for
availing of first ACP would be 10 years instead of 8 years and as
such, the applicant was entitled to get the benefit w.e.f.
19.11.2017, but erroneously he was given the benefit w.e.f.
19.11.2015. So, Learned Counsel submitted that there is no merit
in the connected writ petition and urged for dismissal of the same
with cost. It is further submitted that there is no urgency to grant
any interim protection to the applicant. Learned Counsel further
submitted to allow the respondent authority to file their objection
on or before the next date in the I.A. and also in the connected writ
petition.
Learned Addl. GA submitted that the role of State is formal
in nature. As such, the State is not willing to file any separate
counter-affidavit in this matter and urged for passing appropriate
order.
After hearing both the sides, it appears that the
memorandum dated 07.02.2025 was issued by the authority
without affording any opportunity to the applicant and he was given
the benefit of first ACP w.e.f. 19.11.2015. But, now the
respondents have taken the plea that he was entitled to get benefit
w.e.f. 19.11.2017. The discrepancy was deducted during the period
2015 and now it is 2025.
I have also seen the judgment passed by this court in
connection with WP(C) No.780 of 2024(Annexure-8 to the writ
petition). However, considering the nature of the case, it appears
that the respondent authority should be given an opportunity to file
their counter affidavit on or before the next date in the main case
and also in the I.A.
However, in the meantime, till next date the operation of
the impugned memorandum dated 07.02.2025(Annexure-5 to the
writ petition) be stayed.
List the matter on 01.09.2025.
JUDGE
Snigdha
AMRITA Digitally signed
by AMRITA DEB
DEB Date: 2025.07.21
18:32:18 +05'30'
