[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Shri. Amitava Gan vs The State Of Tripura And Others on 12 January, 2026
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.661 of 2023
Shri. Amitava Gan
......Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and others
......Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Prasanta Kr. Pal, Advocate.
Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate.
Ms. Maitri Majumder, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Along with
WP(C) No.662 of 2023
Sri. Sankar Prasad Majumder
......Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and others
......Respondent(s).
Along with
Md. Khurshed Alam
......Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and others
......Respondent(s).
Along with
Shri Debabrata Laskar
......Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and others
......Respondent(s).
Along with
Shri Sishu Ranjan Bhadra
......Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura and others
......Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Prasanta Kr. Pal, Advocate.
Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate.
Ms. Maitri Majumder, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Addl. G.A.
Mr. Nepal Majumdar, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Order
12/01/2026
Heard Mr. Prasanta Kr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in all the cases.
Also heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, learned Addl. G.A.
appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. Nepal Majumdar, learned
counsel appearing for TSECL-respondents, who are parties in WP(C)
No.662 of 2023, WP(C) No.663 of 2023, WP(C) No.664 of 2023 and
WP(C) No.244 of 2024.
Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for all the petitioners
submits that the cases of all the petitioners are similar and identical. All
of them initially joined in the service as 'Overseer'. Thereafter, on re-
designation of their post, their designation became Junior Engineer
Grade-II. Thereafter, they were promoted to the post of Junior
Engineer, Grade-I, which according to Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A.
was again re-designated as Junior Engineer Grade-V(A). Now, it is a
common case of all the petitioners that although they have completed
17 years and 25 years of service respectively, they were not provided
with the benefits of ACP-II and ACP-III. Therefore, the present writ
petitions are filed. Meanwhile, the department also took steps for
recovery of certain alleged over-payments made to them.
During the hearing Mr. Pal, learned counsel also submits
that all the petitioners are relying on a judgment passed by this Court
on a similar issue in WP(C) No.191 of 2020, decided on 03.05.2021,
wherein necessary directions was given by the learned Single Judge to
provide them the benefits of ACP-II and ACP-III. All the learned counsel
of all the sides submit that the said judgment of WP(C) No.191 of 2020
was thereafter challenged before the division bench by the State and the
division bench also dismissed the appeal by judgment dated
31.08.2021. Thereafter, one contempt petition was also filed before the
division bench for non-compliance of the said judgment. Then, the State
of Tripura and others preferred a Special Leave to Appeal No.16349 of
2022, wherein, after admission, notice was directed to be issued.
Meanwhile, it was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that further
proceedings in said Contempt Case (C) No.23 of 2022, in connection
with WA No.224 of 2021, shall not be proceeded with. Now, learned
counsel of the respondents submits that as the matter is now sub judice
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the better course is to keep these
writ petitions pending till decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Mr. Pal, learned counsel contends that the petitioners are
heavily relying on the decision of the judgment passed by this Court
dated 03.05.2021 in WP(C) No.191 of 2020 and therefore, as the
judgment is now sub judice, without further proceeding of the writ
petitions on other grounds, the matter may be kept pending till the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Considered the submissions.
As it appears, the judgment as relied upon the learned
counsel of the petitioners is sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. According to all the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it
will be more helpful for the Court if necessary decision is passed in all
the writ petitions following the decision passed in the said SLP pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
I am convinced with the submissions of both sides. All the
appeals are accordingly adjourned sine die till the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter will be listed again when any of the
parties of these writ petitions approaches before this Court on receipt of
the final decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court or for any other special
reason.
Registry is directed to act accordingly.
JUDGE
SUJAY Digitally signed
by SUJAY GHOSH
GHOSH 17:07:53 +05'30'
Date: 2026.01.15
Dinashree
