Tripura High Court
Dr. Tarun Kanti Ghosh Age-64 Years vs ) The State Of Tripura on 6 November, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.358 OF 2024
Dr. Tarun Kanti Ghosh Age-64 years, S/o Late Hari Mohan Ghosh, Resident
of 79- Tilla, Saratpally P.O- Kunjaban, P.S- New Capital Complex Dist-West
Tripura, PIN-799006
.... Petitioner(s).
VERSUS
1) The State of Tripura, through the Secretary, Government of Tripura,
Health and Family Welfare Department, Civil Secretariat, P.O- Agartala
Secretariat, Pin-799010, Dist- West Tripura.
2) The Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare department Civil
Secretariate, P.O-Agartala Secretariat, PIN-799010, Dist-West Tripura.
3) The Director of Medical Education, Health and Family Welfare
Department 2nd floor of Lalpath Lab, Bidhurkarta Chowmuhani, P.O-
Agartala, P.S-West Agartala, PIN-799001.
........Respondent(s).
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suman Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. P. Shil, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.
Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 06.11.2025.
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya,
learned G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 1997,
the petitioner joined the Regional Pharmacy Institute, Agartala, as Assistant
Professor when it was a diploma-level institution. In the year 1998, it was
upgraded to a degree-level institute, and following that upgradation, the
designation of the petitioner was changed to Lecturer (Senior Grade) in the
pay scale of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with AGP of Rs.9,000/-. As per Clause XIII
of the Notification dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure-2), a Senior Lecturer
completing three years of service and possessing a Ph.D. degree shall be
placed in the pay band of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with AGP of Rs.10,000/-.
The petitioner successfully worked in the post of Lecturer (Senior Grade)
and completed three years of service on 31.12.2016. Therefore, as per the
said Notification dated 01.03.2013 (Annexure-3), the petitioner became
entitled to AGP of Rs.10,000/- in the aforesaid scale of pay meant for the
post of HoD/Professor. The petitioner submitted a representation in this
regard, but there was no response. Consequently, he filed W.P.(C) No.526 of
2023, which was disposed of by an order dated 23.08.2023 with a direction
upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within a
period of three months. However, the respondents did not comply with the
said direction within the stipulated time. Ultimately, the petitioner served a
contempt notice dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-12), and upon receipt of the
same, respondent No.3, by order dated 02.03.2024 (Annexure-14), informed
the petitioner that his representation had been rejected.
3. In his representation, the petitioner cited examples of
four persons who were working as Assistant Professors but were given the
benefit of AGP Rs.10,000/- by designating them as Professors, even though
they had not served as Associate Professors. However, the respondents,
came to the conclusion that those teachers were working at the degree level,
whereas the petitioner belonged to the diploma level. Being aggrieved by the
said rejection order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:-
"a) Admit the Petition
AND
b) Issue Rule NISI upon the respondents to show cause as to why the
petitioner shall not be given the benefit of AGP Rs.10,000/- with effect from
01.01.2017 on completion of 3 years of service in the scale of pay of Rs.37400-
67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/-in the post of Lecturer (Selection Grade) with
effect from 01.01.2014. AND
c) As to why the petitioner shall not be given the benefit of the post of
HoD/Professor on completion of 3 years of service in the post of lecturer
(Selection Grade) with effect from 01.01.2014 for extending the benefit of
AGP 10,000/- with effect from 01.01.2017 as has been extended to the
petitioners in W.P (C) 916 of 2021 &917 of 2021 and two others namely
Nilmanka and Sabita Pal (Datta). AND
d) As to why a Writ of Certiorari shall not be issued canceling/quashing the
order dated 02.03.2024 by which the representations of the petitioner has been
rejected by the respondents (Annex-14)
e) As to why a Writ of mandamus shall not be issued commanding the
respondents to give the benefit of AGP Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners with
arrears and interest with effect 01.01.2017 till the date of payment.
AND
f) Issue Writ(s) in the light of the prayers made above and make
the Rule absolute, AND
g) Any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed."
4. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, contended that a Senior Lecturer possessing a Ph.D. degree and
having completed three years of service is entitled to be placed in the pay band
of Rs.37,400-67,000/- with AGP of Rs.10,000/-, equivalent to the post of
Professor/HoD. The petitioner, having completed three years of service as
Lecturer (Senior Grade) on 31.12.2016, was thus entitled to such financial
upgradation with effect from 01.01.2017. However, the respondents arbitrarily
rejected his claim by misinterpreting that the benefit was applicable only to
degree-level teachers, even though the petitioner had claimed it under the
diploma-level provision. It was further argued that similarly placed persons
were granted the same benefit, and that the impugned order dated 02.03.2024
was passed mechanically, in disregard of this Court's earlier direction in
W.P.(C) No.526 of 2023, thereby causing discrimination and denial of
legitimate service benefits that had accrued before the petitioner's retirement
on 31.01.2020.
5. On the other hand, learned G.A. submitted that the petition
suffers from non-joinder of a necessary party, as the petitioner was employed
in the Regional Institute of Pharmaceutical Science & Technology (in short,
"RIPSAT"), but the said institute was not impleaded as a party to this petition.
As such, learned G.A. urged this Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard and perused the materials on record.
7. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the materials available on record,
this Court is of the opinion that the benefit of AGP Rs.10,000/-, as claimed by
the petitioner, is admissible only to those holding the post of Professor or Head
of Department. Since the petitioner admittedly did not hold the said post during
his service tenure, he cannot claim the financial benefit attached thereto.
Mere completion of the qualifying service period does not by itself confer
entitlement to the higher AGP without holding the corresponding post as per
the applicable rules. The petitioner also cannot seek parity with other
employees working in different institutions or cadres, as pay fixation and
upgradation depend upon specific service conditions and designations and as
per clause X of the Rules referred, the petitioner has been under AGP
Rs.9,000/-. But a claim made by petitioner referring to Clause XII and so as,
they are not applicable to the petitioner. He is entitled only to the benefits
legitimately due to him under the relevant rules. Accordingly, this Court finds
that the rejection order dated 02.03.2024 suffers from no infirmity warranting
interference.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present writ petition, and the same stands dismissed. As a sequel, the interim
order, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.
DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
suhanjit
SABYASAC Digitally signed by
SABYASACHI GHOSH
HI GHOSH Date: 2025.11.10
13:25:49 +05'30'
