Tripura High Court
Nanu Ranjan Bhowmik vs The State Of Tripura & Ors on 19 September, 2019
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.342 of 2019
Nanu Ranjan Bhowmik
-----Petitioner (s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & Ors.
----Respondent(s)
W.P.(C) No.343 of 2019 Pradip Datta
-----Petitioner (s) Versus The State of Tripura & Ors.
----Respondent W.P.(C) No.356 of 2019 Pradip Kumar Das
-----Petitioner (s) Versus The State of Tripura & Ors.
----Respondent For Petitioner (s) : Ms. S. Chisim, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Order 19.09.2019 Heard Ms. S. Chisim, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
Ms. S. Chisim, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.342 of 2019 [Nanu Ranjan Bhowmik vs. State of Tripura & Ors.], W.P.(C) No.343 of 2019 [Pradip Datta vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.356 of 2019 [Pradip Kumar Das vs. State of Tripura & Ors.] are squarely covered by a decision of this court in W.P.(C) 255 of 2014 [Manoranjan Page 2 of 3 Naha vs. State of Tripura] where this court had occasion to observe as under:
"[6] Hence, the petitioners are entitled to have the pay-scale of `1450-3710 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. As the petitioners are already getting the said pay scale, no payment is required to be made in addition what they have received. But it is made clear that that pay-scale shall for all purposes be treated „the revised pay-scale‟ under the ROP Rules, 1988.
[7] In terms of the above, the respondents shall release the benefits to the petitioners, as might accrue, within a period of 3(three) months from the day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order."
Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A appearing for the respondents has submitted that the said judgment had fallen for consideration in a batch of Writ Appeals including W.A. No.44 of 2017 [The State of Tripura & Ors. vs. Sutapa Majumder]. By the judgment and order dated 05.03.2019, it has been observed by the division bench of this court that the State has to revisit its decision which was challenged in the writ petitions. It has been further observed that the State shall consider the matter afresh in the light of the observation made in the judgment dated 05.03.2019 delivered in W.A. No.44 of 2017 and take a decision positively, within a period of 4[four] months. It shall be open for the writ petitioners to place additional materials, if any, before the authority. In the event, the State takes any decision in the affirmative, as agreed, it shall be open to release the arrears without interest, within a period of 3(three) months from the date of such decision. The writ petitioners undertake not to claim any interest thereupon. It has been categorically observed further as under:
"We clarify that save and except for what we have observed supra, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and more specifically the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.144 of 2014, titled as Smt. Sutapa Majumder vs. State of Tripura & Ors., WP(C) No.452 of 2014, titled as Sri Nikhil Chandra Das & Ors. vs. State of Tripura & Ors. and WP(C) No.74 of Page 3 of 3 2015, titled as Sri Haradhan Das & Ors. vs. State of Tripura & Ors."
In these writ petitions, the petitioners have urged this court for issuing direction upon the respondents to provide the benefit of pay scale on the same line as given in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No.255 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.114 of 2016 relying on the judgment of W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014 titled as Smt. Sutapa Majumder vs. State of Tripura & Ors. As such, these writ petitions are allowed with direction that the respondents shall provide the benefits to the petitioners in terms of Sutapa Majumder (supra) within a period of 4[four] months from the day of receiving a copy of this order, to be furnished by the petitioners.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE Sujay