[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Sri Tapan Kumar Karmakar vs The State Of Tripura on 23 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.361 of 2025
Sri Tapan Kumar Karmakar,
S/o Late Sadhan Chandra Karmakar, Resident of Madhya Laxmibill, Beside
Bishalgarh Municipality Council Office, P.O & P.S. - Bishalgarh, District -
Sepahijala, Pin - 799102.
............Petitioner(s);
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department (R&B),
Government of Tripura, P.O. - Secretariat, P.S. - New Capital Complex, District -
West Tripura, Pin-799010.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura, P.O. - Secretariat, P.S. -
New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura, PIN-799010.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Bishalgarh Division, Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura,
Gakulnagar, P.O. & P.S. Bishalgarh, District - Sepahijala, Pin-799102.
4. The Accountant General (A&E),
Tripura, Near Circuit House, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District -
West Tripura, Pin-799006.
5. The Senior Accounts Officer,
Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura, Near Circuit House, P.O. -
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura, Pin-799006.
........Respondent(s);
Along with
WP(C) No.467 of 2025
Sri Santanu Bhattacharjee,
S/o Late P.C. Bhattacharjee, Resident of Old Kalibari Lane, Krishna Nagar, P.O.
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura, Pin-799001.
............Petitioner(s);
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by its Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, DWS9,
Government of Tripura, P.O. - Secretariat, P.S. - New Capital Complex, District -
West Tripura, Pin-799010.
2. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department (DWS), Government of Tripura, P.O. - Secretariat, P.S. -
New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura, PIN-799010
3. The Drawing & Disbursing Officer & Head of Office,
Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (DWS), Government of
Tripura, P.O. - Secretariat, P.S. - New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura,
PIN-799010.
Page 2 of 9
4. The Accountant General (A&E),
Tripura, Near Circuit House, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District -
West Tripura, Pin-799006.
5. The Senior Accounts Officer,
Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Tripura, Near Circuit House, P.O. -
Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura, Pin-799006.
........Respondent(s);
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, Advocate,
Ms. Ishpa Chakma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
[In WP(C) No.361/2025],
Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A.
[In WP(C) No.467/2025],
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. A. Chakrabarti, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery
of Judgment & Order : 23.03.2026
Whether fit for reporting : YES NO
√ √
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel of both sides.
Both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment & order as identical facts and laws are involved
in both the petitions.
[2] In WP(C) No.361 of 2025, the petitioner joined to the post of
„Tracer‟ under the Public Works Department (R&B), Government of Tripura
on 01.06.1990 in the pay scale of Rs.970-2400 plus other allowances as
admissible. The petitioner completed ten years of his service without
promotion on 01.06.2000, and accordingly, he was extended the benefit of
CAS-I with effect from 01.06.2000. However, there was practically no
financial benefit provided to him as at that time his basic pay was equal to
the next higher grade. On 14.09.2009, the Finance Department, Government
of Tripura issued one memorandum (Annexure-2) wherein it was reflected
that few cases were noticed where the employee got the benefit of higher
pay scale/ higher grade pay scale under CAS during the period 01.01.1999
to 31.12.2005 but without any change in the basic pay and even without any
change of DNI for the reason that at the relevant time scale slab of lower pay
scale and higher pay scale / higher grade pay scale became exactly equal
and the date of increment and date of CAS also fall on the same date. In
these cases, while clarifying the confusion whether such cases would be
treated as consumption of ACP for determining eligibility for providing future
benefit under ACP, it was observed that as the basic pay of the employee on
the concerned date had not been changed at the time of such CAS
movement and also under the process, DNI also had not been changed, it
would not be counted as consumption of ACP while determining eligibility for
future ACP. The said clarification was later on withdrawn by another
memorandum dated 16.01.2012 (Annexure-5). However, it was also
mentioned that the past cases where ACP-I had been granted to any
employee in such cases needed not be re-opened. This clarification is also
uniformly applicable in cases of movement under CAS from other pre-
revised lower scales to higher pre-revised pay scales under the TSCS (RP)
Rules, 1999. Therefore, the benefit of ACP-I which was extended to the
present petitioner was protected. The petitioner went on retirement on
31.01.2025 from the said post without any promotion.
[3] The petitioner, during his career, got the CAS-II on 01.06.2007
on completion of seven years of service from the date of said CAS-I and the
benefit of 3rd ACP was extended to him with effect from 01.06.2015 on
completion of further eight years of service. But after he went on retirement
while calculating his pensionary benefits, the office of the Accountant
General noted alleged anomaly in his pay fixation mentioning said
notification dated 16.01.2012 (Annexure-5) and according to them, his 1st
ACP, 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP ought to have been calculated from
01.01.2006, 01.01.2013 and 01.01.2021 respectively. Accordingly they
reduced his last basic pay to Rs.58,800/- from Rs.64,500/-. They also kept
1/4th of DCRG withheld. His pensionary benefits was released treating his
last basic pay to be Rs.58,800/-.
[4] In WP(C) No. 467 of 2025, the petitioner joined to the post of
Lower Division Clerk (for short, LDC) on 23.08.1990 under the Public Works
Department (DWS), Government of Tripura, similarly with pay scale of
Rs.970-2400/- plus other allowances as admissible. On completion of ten
years of his service without any promotion, he was given the benefit of CAS-
I with effect from 25.08.2000, 2nd ACP with effect from 25.08.2007 and finally
3rd ACP with effect from 25.08.2015. He went on retirement on 31.03.2022.
However, while determining his pensionary benefits, the office of the
Accountant General based on said circular provided his 1st ACP with effect
from 01.01.2006, 2nd ACP with effect from 01.01.2013 and 3rd ACP with
effect from 01.01.2021 and reduced his last pay to Rs.53,800/- from
Rs.57,300/-. Similarly his 1/4th of DCRG was also withheld. His pensionary
benefits was also released treating his last basic pay to be Rs.53,800/-.
Regarding reduction of basic pay and withholdment of such DCRG, both the
writ petitions are filed.
[5] During hearing, learned counsel, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik, submits
that identical matter is already decided by this Court in case of Sri Sukanta
Gupta versus the State of Tripura and others [WP(C) No.50 of 2019]
decided on 11.07.2019 which was also upheld by the Division Bench of this
Court on appeal vide judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed in WA No.37 of
2020 in between Sri Sukanta Gupta versus the State of Tripura and
others by dismissing the appeal. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for
allowing both the writ petitions in the line of judgment passed in said WP(C)
No.50 of 2019.
[6] Learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharya, representing the
office of the Accountant General and learned Additional Government
Advocate, Mr. M. Debbarma, representing the respondents-State in WP(C)
No.361 of 2025 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. D.
Sarma, representing the respondents-State in WP(C) No.467 of 2025 submit
that the fixation of pay of the petitioners were changed based on the said
notification dated 16.01.2012 [Annexure-5 of WP(C) No.361 of 2025] as the
benefit extended by notification dated 14.09.2009 [Annexure-2 of WP(C)
No.361 of 2025] was withdrawn by the State. They also submit that in WP(C)
No.50/2019, the present petitioners were not a party, and therefore, the
petitioners cannot take benefit of said judgment. However, all the learned
counsel agree to the point that in the matter of interpretation of the rules,
whatever is decided in the said case, they are not contending anything
against it because the said judgment has reached the finality between the
parties of that case.
[7] This Court has considered the submissions of both sides and
also has gone through the relevant materials placed in the record. It appears
from the said judgment passed in WP(C) No.50 of 2019 that the petitioner in
said case was appointed on 07.11.1992 as LDC and he retired from service
on 31.01.2018 from the said post without getting any promotion. Learned
Writ Court took note of sub-Rule 7 of Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 2009
regarding extending benefit of one advance increment for fixation of pay of
employees as per the Rules, 2009 and of sub-Rule 8 of Rule 10 of the ROP
Rules, 2009 which further clarified that the government employees who had
got the benefit of CAS under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 between the
period 01.01.1999 to 31.12.2005 moving to the promotion scale without
having benefit of FR 22(I)(a)(1) but got/would get functional promotion in the
same pre-revised pay scale or to the revised pay structure corresponding to
the same pre-revised pay scale after coming over to the revised pay scale,
and held that they would be entitled to get the benefit of one increment
under revised structure at the time of functional promotion in the same pay
scale and finally observed as follows:
"[18] Therefore, it is declared that the petitioner was not
entitled to the benefit of the said increment in view of the
memorandum dated 16.01.2012. But, at the same time, the
analogy as extended by the respondent No. 5, the Accountant
General (A&E) Tripura, is not acceptable to this court. Their
observation exudes pedantic view for existence of the rules
which provide the regulation of pay. Sub Rule 1 of Rule 10 is so
unambiguous that it cannot be applied in other manner, as
indicated by this court. However, for dispelling any sort of
confusion, it is stated that the petitioner was entitled to CAS-1
after 10 years of service even if they did not generate any
financial benefit but after 17 years of service petitioner was
entitled to the second ACP which was granted in favour of the
petitioner and similarly the petitioner was entitled to the third
ACP on completion of 25 years of service in the manner as
stated above. Therefore, there is no illegality in release and
consumption of those ACPs as released in favour of the
petitioner. Therefore, from the pay of the petitioner only that
increment which was released by the office order 08.09.2010 is
liable to be deducted but this court in view of State of Punjab
Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in (2014) 8 SCC 883, where the apex
court has categorically stated that if any amount is released at
the time of fixation of pay in favour of any employee, if such
mistake is not corrected within five years from the date of such
release for category of employees particularly for those who are
borne in the Group-III & IV, that shall be recovered from them.
[19] In view of that the principle of law as laid by the apex
court, the respondents are directed not to recover any amount
from the petitioner the amount that has been received by him in
excess for release of one increment. However, the respondents
are given liberty to determine the last pay in view of the
observation made hereinabove within a period of two months
from the day when a copy of this order shall be placed by the
petitioner and release all other retiral benefits within three
months therefrom without fail."
[8] The Court in said writ petition clearly observed that petitioner in
said case was entitled to CAS-I after 10 years of service even if it did not
generate any financial benefit and then after 17 years of service he was
entitled to the second ACP and similarly on completion of 25 years of service
he was entitled to third ACP. Therefore, there is no illegality in computation
of those ACPs as released in favour of the petitioners earlier. It is stated in
both the writ petitions that in view of the memorandum dated 14.09.2009,
already benefit of one increment was provided to both the petitioners w.e.f.
01.01.2006. However, as indicated earlier, the coordinate Bench of this
Court in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab versus
Rafiq Mashi [(2014) 8 SCC 883] observed in said case that no recovery of
any excess amount paid due to granting of said one increment to the said
petitioner cannot be recovered but the respondents were given liberty to
correct the last pay of the said petitioner accordingly. The Division Bench in
said WA No.37 of 2020 also similarly observed that respondents would not
recover any amount from the petitioner that had been received by him in
excess, for release of pension, however, they would be at liberty to
determine the pension according to the last pay of the petitioner after
excluding the benefit accrued out of one increment in view of the office order
dated 08.09.2010. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhoumik, submits that though the
benefit of one increment which was released to the present petitioners from
01.01.2006, is liable to be withdrawn but no recovery can be made from the
petitioners for that purpose rather their last pay may be corrected
accordingly.
[9] As the benefit provided to the petitioners as per notification
dated 14.09.2009 was protected in the subsequent notification dated
16.01.2012 and also the matter is already covered by above said two
decisions of this Court and said judgments have also reached the finality and
are binding on the parties, these writ petitions are accordingly disposed of
with direction that the benefits of three CAS/ACP as were granted by the
State-respondents will remain un-altered without giving any effect to the
proposal of the office of Accountant General for changing of the dates of
their 1st ACP, 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP to 01.01.2006, 01.01.2013 and
01.01.2021 respectively. However, while fixing the last pay of the petitioners,
the benefit as was provided to them under one increment on 01.01.2006
may be withdrawn. It is also directed that no recovery would be made from
any of the petitioners regarding excess payment made due to granting
benefit of said increment from 01.01.2006 in view of law laid down by
Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Mashi (supra). The respondents are given
liberty to regularize the matter of fixation of last pay of the petitioners for
determination of pensionary benefits of the petitioners, within two months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Arrear, if any, shall be paid to
the petitioners within that period along with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum from the respective dates when the same fell due. Similarly, rest
amount of DCRG also shall be released within that period of two months to
the petitioners with similar rate of interest subject to any adjustment required
to be made after final fixation of their last pay.
With such observations and directions, the instant writ petitions
are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Munna MUNNA SAHA Date: 2026.03.26 18:15:57 +05'30'
